epistomological discussion

[Silenus]

I am opening this thread with the intent of starting a dialogue to improve my understanding of epistemology. I want to propose a skeleton of how I view the subject. I am trying to sharpen my thoughts, so I welcome criticism or supporting elaboration of what I say. However, if you are going to criticize, I would like you not only to describe the problem, but proscribe a solution, an alternative view. My chief goal here is to learn.

Of all the epistemological theories out there, I’ve found myself unable to ascribe to one view. Do I go with rationalism, empiricism, fideism, pragmatism, combinationalism, etc? As far as the various views of epistemology go and their conflicts (such as rationalism vs. empiricism, et all.), I think it is best to use rationalistic reasoning as the truth tester for premises and scientific inductive reasoning, existential intuitions, and relevant authorities as the source of the data used to form premises. Basically, I advocate some sort of conglomeration of the major schools together to determine the truth and falsehood of things rather than choosing only one approach. One would use the empirical methods of science and would use some intersubjective methodology to value and judge intuition. From these things, along with axiomatic a priori considerations, deduction would help sort out falsehood. However, these methods can not be used absent of a noetic structure or worldview. For instance, say I see someone raised from the dead. If I am a naturalist, I’m going to assume that I missed something, that there are some unexplained phenomena that explain what appeared to be a miraculous event. Someone with a supernaturist worldview would allow for the possibility that there is no empirical, caused based explanation for this event. Facts cannot be interpreted absent a noetic structure. So, to determine truth within a world view, the scientific method interprets facts, deductive reasoning helps prevent falsehood in speculation, and intuitions and other existential considerations would also count as data.

Because of the reality that context determines how facts are seen, these methods could not determine between worldviews. However, to determine between worldviews, one must look for things that cannot be denied and things that cannot be affirmed.

An example of something that is undeniable is logic; you must use it to defeat it.

An example of something that is unaffirmable is logical positivism, because once its foundational epistemological principles are affirmed, they are also denied.

As one determines various data and worldviews, it would be advantageous to also see how different phenomena would be handled in different worldviews; therefore, one must consider facts within various worldviews to gain assurance of belief, looking for those instances where unaffirmable or undeniable things may occur.

I guess some simple questions I would have from this are:

1) Has anyone encountered any interesting intersubjective (I’m borrowing from Searle here) methodologies for appraising intuitions?
2) Has anyone encountered any interesting methodologies for appraising a source of authority in a given field?
3) How do you respond to the assertion I made above that facts cannot be interpreted outside of a noetic structure or worldview?
4) And a simpler one, how do you draw lines between what you call knowledge and what you call opinion?

 

[quatona]

Good questions! - within the framework of your worldview that the goal is to find "truth".
My approach is a rather pragmatic one, however.

 

[Silenus]

Good questions! - within the framework of your worldview that the goal is to find "truth".
My approach is a rather pragmatic one, however

So, you obviously agree with the assertion in question 3. So what is your approach . . . I know we had a rather protracted discussion that I had to abandon because of time, and some of this was covered there. But if you could, elaborate on your approach.

 

[quatona]

So, you obviously agree with the assertion in question 3. So what is your approach . . . I know we had a rather protracted discussion that I had to abandon because of time, and some of this was covered there. But if you could, elaborate on your approach.

Not sure what it is you want to know specifically.
I am assuming that I am the creator of my reality, and that I create it as I need it.

 

[Silenus]

Not sure what it is you want to know specifically.
I am assuming that I am the creator of my reality, and that I create it as I need it.

If I remember correctly from where we left off in our discussion, the reality you create is out of perceptions you have. You weren't entirely divorsed from the idea of a reality independant of yourself, but that you found conciousness to be primary to existence (I guess that might be a way to put it).

Let me ask, what is "reality?" How would you define the term.

Furthermore, by saying you are the creator of reality and that reality isn't primary, don't you have to appeal to a primary reality to make that assertion. Basically, I hold the concept of areality "out there" independant of my mind, hence the goal of finding truth. To you, reality is "inside" so truth is what you make it?

To say that don't you have to say that my concept of reality doesn't correctly portray reality proper while yours does, therefore, appealing to a reality proper?

Also, what do you mean by create it as you need it? need it for what? What is the telos you are proposing?

This is why I was hoping that anybody who would criticise would offer a counter proposal, so i can learn where others are coming from . . . you may not believe in truth proper, but do you believe that there is knowledge?
This, I guess, is my question for you.

 

[quatona]

If I remember correctly from where we left off in our discussion, the reality you create is out of perceptions you have. You weren't entirely divorsed from the idea of a reality independant of yourself,

I guess I am entirely divorced from it in that I don´t think it matters in any way.

but that you found conciousness to be primary to existence (I guess that might be a way to put it).

I don´t think I would put it that way. All I can work from presents itself in my consciousness.

Let me ask, what is "reality?" How would you define the term.

Without having thought very long about it, i.e.in a rough and dirty definition: The entirety of my experiences and conclusions.

Furthermore, by saying you are the creator of reality and that reality isn't primary, don't you have to appeal to a primary reality to make that assertion.

See, that´s why I prefer to word my notions myself. If simply agreeing with your paraphrasings I sense that I buy things I don´t want to buy. No criticism, just saying.
That was exactly why I hesitated following your "consciousness primary to existence".
How exactly do my experiences require an "outside reality"?

Basically, I hold the concept of areality "out there" independant of my mind, hence the goal of finding truth. To you, reality is "inside" so truth is what you make it?

Not really. It´s more like"truth" is an obsolete concept, an irrelevant and pointless assumption.

To say that don't you have to say that my concept of reality doesn't correctly portray reality proper while yours does, therefore, appealing to a reality proper?

That´s why I would never say that "your concept of reality doesn´t correctly portray reality". This sentence wouldn´t even make any sense in my system.

Also, what do you mean by create it as you need it? need it for what?

Since my needs change from moment to moment I don´t know how to answer this question. If I need a hammer I will recreate that which I initially created as a stone as a hammer.

What is the telos you are proposing?

Personally, I guess the telos is to minimize suffering. This is a close as I can get for the moment.

This is why I was hoping that anybody who would criticise would offer a counter proposal, so i can learn where others are coming from . . .

Well, you have my proposal. The fact that it doesn´t make sense to you if you try to impose your concepts on it is not surprising.

you may not believe in truth proper, but do you believe that there is knowledge?
This, I guess, is my question for you.

Depends on what you mean when saying "knowledge". The traditional idea that comes down to something along the line of "congruence between outer truth and inner reality" is an impossibility - even if assuming for a moment that there exists something like an "outer truth". This makes the assumption of such an "outer truth" irrelevant for me, in the first place.

 

[elman]

Not sure what it is you want to know specifically.
I am assuming that I am the creator of my reality, and that I create it as I need it.

I am getting nervous--I agree with that.

 

[quatona]

I am getting nervous--I agree with that.

 

[Silenus]

How exactly do my experiences require an "outside reality"?

It is not your experence but your assertion that my view or noetic structure is potentially false. I have no problem with someone telling me my structure is false, in fact, that is what I am hoping people will do who come and read this thread. But, I don’t see anyway around the following conclusion: By denying my structure you are saying it is false or excessive, or whatever you are saying about it, I’m still not sure. If you are dropping all concepts of truth and falsehood, ie. all concepts of epistomology, and performing a hyper-active version of a pheonomological reduction, your very claims are purely experiences that say nothing about anything. They have no “aboutness.” If all thought is merely experience, then, don’t you have to admit the possiblibility that any propositions you encounter are equally valid? Let me ask you this to seek clarification: Do you think that all perception originates in the mind, that no perceptions are reactions?

That´s why I would never say that "your concept of reality doesn´t correctly portray reality". This sentence wouldn´t even make any sense in my system.

So, take your time and describe your system in your own words.

Personally, I guess the telos is to minimize suffering. This is a close as I can get for the moment.

Why?

Well, you have my proposal. The fact that it doesn´t make sense to you if you try to impose your concepts on it is not surprising

Where am I imposing?

 

[quatona]

It is not your experence but your assertion that my view or noetic structure is potentially false.

What do you mean - "false"?

I have no problem with someone telling me my structure is false, in fact, that is what I am hoping people will do who come and read this thread. But, I don’t see anyway around the following conclusion: By denying my structure you are saying it is false or excessive, or whatever you are saying about it, I’m still not sure.

I´m saying that since all I experience is brought to me by my consciousness the assumption of an "outer truth" is irrelevant for me. Inaccessible in that a hypothetical "outer truth" will never present itself to me as it is, but always as a reproduction (or, if we deny the existence of an "outer truth", as a production) of my consciousness. It´s all I can work from, and it cannot be changed.

If you are dropping all concepts of truth and falsehood, ie. all concepts of epistomology, and performing a hyper-active version of a pheonomological reduction, your very claims are purely experiences that say nothing about anything.

They say something about my reality, and that´s all they are supposed to. You may find them not interesting, though.

They have no “aboutness.”

To be more precise, they don´t care whether they have an aboutness or not.

If all thought is merely experience, then, don’t you have to admit the possiblibility that any propositions you encounter are equally valid?

Sure. The question, however, is: Do they appear useful to me?

Let me ask you this to seek clarification: Do you think that all perception originates in the mind, that no perceptions are reactions?

I don´t know and I don´t care. I wouldn´t know what difference it makes.

So, take your time and describe your system in your own words.

There isn´t much more to it than I have already said.

Why?

Why what? Why I guess my telos is to minimize suffering (1)? Or why this statement is as close as I can get for the time being (2)?
(1) Because that appears to be the common denominator in all my cognitive efforts. I find it worthwhile, more worthwhile than anything else, and if observing the efforts of other people assuming they are basically doing the same makes sense to me. It is a useful assumption, I don´t seem to run into any problems assuming this.
(2) I just can´t think of a better way of saying it.

Where am I imposing?

For example, you are trying to measure them by concepts like "true" and "false" - which are concepts valid and possibly useful in your view, but not in mine.

 

[Silenus]

For example, you are trying to measure them by concepts like "true" and "false" - which are concepts valid and possibly useful in your view, but not in mine

Sure. The question, however, is: Do they appear useful to me?

Okay, you’re not denying my view, you just don’t like it or find it useful. That’s helpful. So, what criteria, if any, do you use for the acceptence or rejection of belief. You mentioned usefulness. Since your telos is the reduction of suffering, do you mean useful for that purpose? That you accept or reject things on that basis?

To be more precise, they don´t care whether they have an aboutness or not.

I would think that would be less precise, the adding of uneccessary data, according to your view. How would it be more precise?

1) Because that appears to be the common denominator in all my cognitive efforts. I find it worthwhile, more worthwhile than anything else, and if observing the efforts of other people assuming they are basically doing the same makes sense to me. It is a useful assumption, I don´t seem to run into any problems assuming this.

So, you are talking about your goal of reducing your own suffering or all suffering? If that is your goal, then all suffering in any situation is something to be denied, correct? Under your conception of this goal, is there any instance you can think of where you would accept suffering.

 

[quatona]

Okay, you’re not denying my view, you just don’t like it or find it useful. That’s helpful. So, what criteria, if any, do you use for the acceptence or rejection of belief. You mentioned usefulness. Since your telos is the reduction of suffering, do you mean useful for that purpose?

Yes, we can work from there.

That you accept or reject things on that basis?

By and large, yes. In which "suffering" can appear in many different ways, of course.

I would think that would be less precise, the adding of uneccessary data, according to your view. How would it be more precise?

In that it describes my notion more accurately.

So, you are talking about your goal of reducing your own suffering or all suffering?

All suffering that I experience.

If that is your goal, then all suffering in any situation is something to be denied, correct?

Not sure what you mean when saying "denied" here.

Under your conception of this goal, is there any instance you can think of where you would accept suffering.

Different forms of suffering seem to interdependently increase or decrease. So it appears that I can´t help accepting some kind of suffering while reducing some other.

 

[Silenus]

Different forms of suffering seem to interdependently increase or decrease. So it appears that I can´t help accepting some kind of suffering while reducing some other.

So, in these cases where reducing some suffering means accepting others, how do you determine what suffering to accept and what to reduce?

 

[quatona]

So, in these cases where reducing some suffering means accepting others, how do you determine what suffering to accept and what to reduce?

Presumably I accept that which is easier tolerable.
Like, I love to have this apple there, and losing it would mean some (mild) form of suffering. Eventually I will suffer from hunger so much that I find the loss of the apple that comes with eating it easier tolerable than the hunger. I really don´t know what could be complicated about it, and, to be honest, in my observation everyone seems to function like that.

 

[Silenus]

Like, I love to have this apple there, and losing it would mean some (mild) form of suffering. Eventually I will suffer from hunger so much that I find the loss of the apple that comes with eating it easier tolerable than the hunger. I really don´t know what could be complicated about it, and, to be honest, in my observation everyone seems to function like that.

I'm not implying complication, just trying to get to the bottom of things. I do think you will have some complication as you move to different forms of suffering other than the physical and to involving the suffering of others. Between a psychological and physical form of suffering, which one takes priority . . . these kinds of conciderations. Between my suffering and someone else . . . etc.

i don't know if I agree that everyone seems to function like that . . . I think i've seen many tolerate suffering for other conciderations (perhaps you would say that they find the suffering they are tolerating more favorable than something that would occur if they didn't tolerat it) . . . but I'm not too worried about that now, unless it helps you explain how you make these deliberations between beliefs, propositions, etc.

How do you view different types of suffering? Do you see them as all physical? If not, how do you deliberate between these?

 

[quatona]

I'm not implying complication, just trying to get to the bottom of things. I do think you will have some complication as you move to different forms of suffering other than the physical and to involving the suffering of others. Between a psychological and physical form of suffering, which one takes priority . . . these kinds of conciderations. Between my suffering and someone else . . . etc.

Well, the apple example involved a case of conflict between a suffering that is commonly viewed as physical (hunger) and a suffering that is commonly viewed as psychological (regret about a loss). I don´t seem to have problems solving it.
As for the deliberation "suffering of someone else vs. my suffering" - I experience the suffering of others causing me suffering. I perceive myself as going with the action that promises to reduce the general amount of suffering I experience.

i don't know if I agree that everyone seems to function like that . . . I think i've seen many tolerate suffering for other conciderations (perhaps you would say that they find the suffering they are tolerating more favorable than something that would occur if they didn't tolerat it)

Yes, that notion doesn´t seem to conflict with my experiences.

. . . but I'm not too worried about that now, unless it helps you explain how you make these deliberations between beliefs, propositions, etc.

I´m not sure what you are looking for. Cut in stone rules? I´m just describing how I perceive myself functioning, without any such rules and without any problems. From my perspective, your objections and questions strike me as purely academic.

How do you view different types of suffering?

As different.

Do you see them as all physical?

No, I see them all as mental.

If not, how do you deliberate between these?

I am wondering if you can give me an example for those problems I don´t seem to encounter?

As long as I am all on my own I won´t run into problems with the way I construct my reality. I update or modify it as I see fit.
Problems may occur if others have a different reality. Fortunately, there is a lot of intersubjective common ground - so no problem there, either.
Now, I am unable to distinguish between the quality of a 16bit sound file and a 24bit sound file. They sound the same to me. Then, there are those guys who say it makes a hell of a difference. They suffer when listening to my recordings in 16b. Depending on the person, the situation, the importance the issue has for them, and other factors (time and effort involved for me etc.) I will either send them 24b files or keep sending them 16b files.

 

[Silenus]

Well, the apple example involved a case of conflict between a suffering that is commonly viewed as physical (hunger) and a suffering that is commonly viewed as psychological (regret about a loss). I don´t seem to have problems solving it.

As for the deliberation "suffering of someone else vs. my suffering" - I experience the suffering of others causing me suffering. I perceive myself as going with the action that promises to reduce the general amount of suffering I experience.

I’m not interested in your level of difficulty in solving a problem, I’m interested in how you would solve a conflict that is a little more serious. The disappearance of an apple, which is a common consumable, is not a serious dilemma when one is hungry. I’m interested in how you would solve a more serious dilemma. Sacrifice in battle for a comrade, or if you’re starving and eating would deprive someone else of food, make the scenario as desperate as you want, I’m curious how you would make the choice when the solution is not so obviously clear cut. I’m not challenging you view, I’m trying to understand it. If the decrease of suffering is your goal and how you choose beliefs, how do you decide when the sense of suffering between two choices of beliefs is essentially equal to you.

I´m not sure what you are looking for. Cut in stone rules? I´m just describing how I perceive myself functioning, without any such rules and without any problems. From my perspective, your objections and questions strike me as purely academic.

Not rules or commandments as such, I’m just looking for what might guide your decision if you encountered a dilemma. Would there be a general principle or maybe just intuition . . . there are no objections, but I am probably being academic.

Just to restate where you are coming from . . . you see all perceptions, cognitions, etc. solely as mental phenomena and, in choosing what to believe or how to act, you are guided by the desire to decrease suffering. Epistemology, in regards to the op, (I don’t know if you would use this word here, I’m trying not to choose your words for you) for you, then, would be a process of using (logic?) to make sure that what you believe is consistent, that there is no cognitive dissidence in the beliefs you espouse? Seriously, I’m not trying to criticize, just understand.

 

[quatona]

I’m not interested in your level of difficulty in solving a problem, I’m interested in how you would solve a conflict that is a little more serious. The disappearance of an apple, which is a common consumable, is not a serious dilemma when one is hungry. I’m interested in how you would solve a more serious dilemma. Sacrifice in battle for a comrade, or if you’re starving and eating would deprive someone else of food, make the scenario as desperate as you want, I’m curious how you would make the choice when the solution is not so obviously clear cut. I’m not challenging you view, I’m trying to understand it. If the decrease of suffering is your goal and how you choose beliefs, how do you decide when the sense of suffering between two choices of beliefs is essentially equal to you.

There may be a misunderstanding. You asked me what might be the principle underlying the way I construct reality, and I told you my observation - to the best of my knowledge: It seems to come down to reducing suffering.
It was not like I said it was a moral/ethical postulation of sorts. Neither did I say that the attempts to reduce suffering were always successful (who could tell that and compared to what, anyways?), or that I had invented a clear cut strategy for that purpose. I´m not even sure it is my conscious intention.
Provoked by your question I just thought about what might be the underlying principle, the common denominator - and I found that "reducing suffering" made perfect sense.

Hope that helps.

Not rules or commandments as such, I’m just looking for what might guide your decision if you encountered a dilemma. Would there be a general principle or maybe just intuition . . .

Personally, I don´t think there is much of general principles. How could they help with unique situations?
Intuition, rationalization, arbitrary selection out of the complexity of aspects, spontaneous emotion, avoidance of cognitive dissonance - they all (and probably more) seem to play a part, in various mixtures, depending on the situation.

there are no objections, but I am probably being academic.

I wouldn´t have problems with objections, either.

However, I´m wondering how we got from the way I construct my reality to moral/ethical questions.

Just to restate where you are coming from . . . you see all perceptions, cognitions, etc. solely as mental phenomena and, in choosing what to believe or how to act, you are guided by the desire to decrease suffering.

I´d prefer to say that without using the word "choosing" , but apart from that this sounds like a correct description of what I observe myself seeing and doing.

Epistemology, in regards to the op, (I don’t know if you would use this word here, I’m trying not to choose your words for you) for you, then, would be a process of using (logic?) to make sure that what you believe is consistent, that there is no cognitive dissidence in the beliefs you espouse? Seriously, I’m not trying to criticize, just understand.

I won´t object to the word "epistemology" - it´s your topic, after all.
However, as I said in my first post already, these epistemological questions are good questions within a system that presupposes
a. an "outer truth" and
b. the possibility of perceiving this "truth" for what it is.
Whilst in a pragmatic (radical-constructivistic) system that postulates the non-existence and/or irrelevance and/or inaccessibility of such an "outer truth" there is little use for the concept of "epistemology" (in the way it is commonly defined), is there?
But to answer your question:
Yes, logic seems to be axiomatic.
Yes, cognitive dissonance or cognitive dissidence appears to be a source of major suffering and I observe myself doing a lot of effort to avoid it. In view of the many variables and parameters that can be changed within the construction of my reality there are consequently a great number of different ways to avoid cognitive dissonance and illogicality. Which parameters I adjust in which situation and why does not really seem to follow a system - at least not one that I have fully understood. (Just in case your next question is for my one-fits-all- recipe. )

 

[Silenus]

However, I´m wondering how we got from the way I construct my reality to moral/ethical questions

When I asked about dilemmas, i wasn't trying to get you to say what you thought was right, just, if you construct reality to reduce suffering, how do you construct reality in the face of delemmas concerning suffering. I think you answered that here . . .

Personally, I don´t think there is much of general principles. How could they help with unique situations? Intuition, rationalization, arbitrary selection out of the complexity of aspects, spontaneous emotion, avoidance of cognitive dissonance - they all (and probably more) seem to play a part, in various mixtures, depending on the situation.

I was just curious as to whether you had any guiding principles in mind. . . But you have answered my questions, and, since you like my reistatement of your beliefs, I think I understand them. I don't think I agree, although you have, yet again, prompted some good questions in my thinking, but my purpose here was to get some different input, so I'm hoping some other people chime in . . . thanks for the input.

 

[Silenus]

I always thought that the scientific method had its metaphysical underpinnings in, for one thing, a view that reality exists independent of the subject and that truth could be ascertained, and that the scientific method was a way to verify the truthfulness of postulations about reality . . . the very things you denied.

1) do you think my appraisal of the underpinnings of the scientific method is accurate?

2) How does your radical-constructivistic (I'm using this word choice because, if i understood you correctly, that's how you labeled yourself) "epistemology" view the scientific method?