Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sanoy" data-source="post: 72646994" data-attributes="member: 397693"><p>I was worried that "determine" would fall into equivocation. It has two senses, to cause, and to ascertain. When you remove the "skillful" it kind of floats without a certain meaning. I mean here to cause -you can't cause something to be Knowledge, it has to be ascertained. From now on I will bold it when it refers to "cause". If I forget, just remember that when it comes to your world view it's cause, and when it comes to my world view it is ascertain.</p><p></p><p>A deterministic system can verify knowledge, but only through an external system of epistemology. It would be circular for a deterministic system to verify it's own conclusions through it's own deterministic system. Deterministic learning systems can only do this because beings with rationality can define a system of epistemology for it to use.</p><p></p><p>The capacity for rationality is the answer, not randomness or determinism.</p><p></p><p>In a deterministic system, corroboration just is a trending determinism, it's not a 'natural' epistemology. If every sensor in the world 'detects' something, that doesn't mean that the something exists. Every sensor in the world could be wrong. And the worst part about it is, no one would know. Your mindset here, in referring to corroboration, is based on a rational epistemology, in particular that branch known as science. One must know the sensor is working, and that can't be established through determinism, because you will either have the belief it is working or the belief that it isn't working for no other reason that you are determined to have that belief.</p><p></p><p>That is the point, a car or any deterministic system will never 'know' what a wall is. It can only be programed, by rational people, to appear to operate as if it does 'know' what a wall is. A description is fine tuned enough to allow the system to operate within a functional range of association to an abstract object. But it will never know what a wall is, or an obstruction. It is just a revolving stack of dominoes. And so is any person under determinism.</p><p></p><p>Abstract objects like 'data' are real, but they are immaterial. In our case they are transmitted by material, but they are not the material. These pixels of 1 and 2 are not data, the one and the two are data. Data is only perceptible by a rational mind. Material does not perceive abstract objects, what is perceived as a reaction is merely the natural causative forces. Put another way, while you may have the perception you are making rational statements, you are merely operating under the natural causative forces of the ingredients that make up your physical body.</p><p></p><p>Why is free will required for rationality? This is understood in philosophy. Free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. If you are determined you are not rationalizing anything, your mental fizzing is simply caused by natural forces. You cannot be rational and determined, those are mutually exclusive. Under determinism, the guy that believes the world is round is no more rational than the guy that was just shot in the head that concludes that the world is a big stick of chewing gum. Neither could have come to believe anything other than what they believe. Matter is not rational, it's contingent.</p><p></p><p>Lets not get into evolution unless we need to. I will say that I didn't understand your point about where "life produces life" fails. I understand it on naturalism, but not before that presupposition. But we don't need to get into that I don't think, not so far anyway.</p><p></p><p>I am not claiming religion is true because many believe it, I'm simply claiming via numbers that there is an innate and broad sense of one having a spirit.</p><p></p><p>If "time keeping" is an essential component of a watch, then it ceases to be a watch when it fails to keep time. Like I said, any attempt at a metaphor using two different descriptions that are supposed to refer to the same thing will in fact lose both things at the loss of one or equivocate.</p><p></p><p>If a person is either a mind or the potential for mind, then abortion is murder. I hope I am mistaken, but I assume you will want to further delineate that description so as to retain abortion.</p><p></p><p>You say <em>"I'm determined to weigh up the evidence I observe and <strong>decide</strong> its truth value on the result of logical evaluation based on experience and/or techniques I have learned"</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>You can't decide Furious, you are determined... remember? Decisions are the luxury of people like myself, who are not determined. And logic? what logic does matter have?</p><p></p><p>Correct, I can only assert that you lack an epistemic justification for any claims of truth. But this is justified by your inability to present an epistemic justification for what you claim is the truth. You have been trying to present this, but you are borrowing my world view to do it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sanoy, post: 72646994, member: 397693"] I was worried that "determine" would fall into equivocation. It has two senses, to cause, and to ascertain. When you remove the "skillful" it kind of floats without a certain meaning. I mean here to cause -you can't cause something to be Knowledge, it has to be ascertained. From now on I will bold it when it refers to "cause". If I forget, just remember that when it comes to your world view it's cause, and when it comes to my world view it is ascertain. A deterministic system can verify knowledge, but only through an external system of epistemology. It would be circular for a deterministic system to verify it's own conclusions through it's own deterministic system. Deterministic learning systems can only do this because beings with rationality can define a system of epistemology for it to use. The capacity for rationality is the answer, not randomness or determinism. In a deterministic system, corroboration just is a trending determinism, it's not a 'natural' epistemology. If every sensor in the world 'detects' something, that doesn't mean that the something exists. Every sensor in the world could be wrong. And the worst part about it is, no one would know. Your mindset here, in referring to corroboration, is based on a rational epistemology, in particular that branch known as science. One must know the sensor is working, and that can't be established through determinism, because you will either have the belief it is working or the belief that it isn't working for no other reason that you are determined to have that belief. That is the point, a car or any deterministic system will never 'know' what a wall is. It can only be programed, by rational people, to appear to operate as if it does 'know' what a wall is. A description is fine tuned enough to allow the system to operate within a functional range of association to an abstract object. But it will never know what a wall is, or an obstruction. It is just a revolving stack of dominoes. And so is any person under determinism. Abstract objects like 'data' are real, but they are immaterial. In our case they are transmitted by material, but they are not the material. These pixels of 1 and 2 are not data, the one and the two are data. Data is only perceptible by a rational mind. Material does not perceive abstract objects, what is perceived as a reaction is merely the natural causative forces. Put another way, while you may have the perception you are making rational statements, you are merely operating under the natural causative forces of the ingredients that make up your physical body. Why is free will required for rationality? This is understood in philosophy. Free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. If you are determined you are not rationalizing anything, your mental fizzing is simply caused by natural forces. You cannot be rational and determined, those are mutually exclusive. Under determinism, the guy that believes the world is round is no more rational than the guy that was just shot in the head that concludes that the world is a big stick of chewing gum. Neither could have come to believe anything other than what they believe. Matter is not rational, it's contingent. Lets not get into evolution unless we need to. I will say that I didn't understand your point about where "life produces life" fails. I understand it on naturalism, but not before that presupposition. But we don't need to get into that I don't think, not so far anyway. I am not claiming religion is true because many believe it, I'm simply claiming via numbers that there is an innate and broad sense of one having a spirit. If "time keeping" is an essential component of a watch, then it ceases to be a watch when it fails to keep time. Like I said, any attempt at a metaphor using two different descriptions that are supposed to refer to the same thing will in fact lose both things at the loss of one or equivocate. If a person is either a mind or the potential for mind, then abortion is murder. I hope I am mistaken, but I assume you will want to further delineate that description so as to retain abortion. You say [I]"I'm determined to weigh up the evidence I observe and [B]decide[/B] its truth value on the result of logical evaluation based on experience and/or techniques I have learned" [/I] You can't decide Furious, you are determined... remember? Decisions are the luxury of people like myself, who are not determined. And logic? what logic does matter have? Correct, I can only assert that you lack an epistemic justification for any claims of truth. But this is justified by your inability to present an epistemic justification for what you claim is the truth. You have been trying to present this, but you are borrowing my world view to do it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc?
Top
Bottom