Giardiasis said:
Nope. Define "exist". Then describe something that you 'know' exists and cannot be verified.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Caro called out, Footy Classified
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
Nope. Define "exist". Then describe something that you 'know' exists and cannot be verified.
KnightersRevenge said:I've seen pictures of Helen Dimico. I'm looking at one right now. >
Stop looking at Tasmania. ;D
Why nope? Can't do it?KnightersRevenge said:
For something to exist it must have identity. The law of identity (A is A) is just another aspect of saying something exists. To say that something exists, or is real, is to say that it exists in a particular form, with particular attributes. This applies for both mind dependent existence and mind independent existence.
Something I know exists but cannot be verified through empirical methods is the empirical method itself.
Giardiasis said:
Well I am glad we agree that there can be mind independent 'existance'. A rock is a rock is a rock. I am unconcerned with the ability to prove that the empirical method exists. Only it's utility matters to me. You haven't demonstrated that it exists only asserted it. It is a concept. I am unaware of any way to determine if concepts exist consistent with your definition and I think you draw a long bow when jumping from the law of identity to this describes existence. It may well be a useful way to think about it but it doesn't demonstrate it.
We both are begging the question in our own way. My use of the term exist exclusively deals with material existence. That is, those things that can be tested empirically. If there are things that can't be, then I can't imagine how one would determine anything about them. And you haven't offered me a method, just an assertion: The empirical method exists. Okay, how do we investigate that?
Actually a rock is a concept, at what point does a rock become a pebble or a mountain? The only thing that exists independent of the mind are the little bits of matter that make up what you are calling a rock.KnightersRevenge said:
How can you claim that you don't know if the empirical method exists, yet also claim that it provides utility? If it provides utility, then it must have identity, and must exist. Another example: the number 2 doesn't exist outside of someone conceiving it, but it exists as long as someone does. It does not exist independent of the mind, but is mind dependent. Hence if someone isn't conceiving it then it doesn't exist.
If you want to investigate the empirical method you need to go to the foundation of knowledge, i.e. logic. Only through use of a priori knowledge can the empirical method be justified, which is what I was going to point out by asking you to justify empiricism. You can't justify empiricism using empiricism.
Yes that's what I meant. A priori knowledge or in other words knowledge prior to experience.antman said:
Giardiasis said:
So I think I disagree on some level on the rock. It can have 'existance' completely independent of my concept of a rock. If it is on a planet in an alternate universe that contains no minds. The rock can still exist. My concept of it has no power over it. My mind governs my experience, not the rock's. If it is on a planet with independently evolved intelligent beings with a completely alien
hihi) concept of a rock but that in all empirical ways it conforms to my concept, the nomenclature doesn't matter. It's existence isn't tied to my concept. If I pick it up (if it is small enough or gravity is weak enough) and hurl it at your head does the concept or the rock cause the injury?Because as I stated I don't find the concept of things that cannot be defined empirically 'existing' to be useful. I can see why that seems counter intuitive. To me it is a rabbit hole to nowhere.
Remember that I am the most lay of lay people and speak entirely extemporaneously. So these are my thoughts, as they happen. Assume no knowledge of philosophy.
The attempt to pigeon hole all knowledge as philosophy is often an out used by those who wish to undermine the empirical method so they can claim there are no facts. Everything is philosophy and so that trumps any empirical knowledge. I don't buy it. The empirical method is our best path to knowledge. You disagree? We know what we know because it works. Its utility is independent of practitioner or circumstance so long as the method followed is pure. A rock in Spain is a rock on the moon is a rock in the Kuiper Belt is a rock orbiting an as yet undiscovered planet in an as yet undiscovered galaxy. Or if you prefer. An atom of hydrogen in a rock in Spain is an atom of hydrogen in a rock on the moon, is an atom of hydrogen in a rock in the Kuiper Belt, is an atom of hydrogen in a rock orbiting an as yet undiscovered planet in an as yet undiscovered galaxy.
The physical matter exists independent of your mind, but you have taken the experience of feeling, smelling, seeing, tasting and hearing the physical matter and your mind has created a boundary with which you call a rock. If you take a small chunk away from the rock, you are probably going to still call it a rock, but eventually you will call it a pebble. Your mind has conceptualised these experiences, i.e. it has grouped together similar sensory experiences and given them a name. I’m not saying that everything is a concept, the physical matter exists independent of your mind and it will indeed cause injury.KnightersRevenge said:So I think I disagree on some level on the rock. It can have 'existance' completely independent of my concept of a rock. If it is on a planet in an alternate universe that contains no minds. The rock can still exist. My concept of it has no power over it. My mind governs my experience, not the rock's. If it is on a planet with independently evolved intelligent beings with a completely alien
This does not resolve the contradiction you have created. If the empirical method provides something useful (i.e. something that exists), than by virtue of logical consistency it must also exist. You can’t create something from nothing.KnightersRevenge said:
Apologies, a priori simply means prior to experience.KnightersRevenge said:
I believe that the empirical method is the best method with which to discover knowledge about natural phenomena, as the phenomena under investigation respond to the same stimuli in the same way. In the realms of human action (especially economics) though it’s only use is to provide historical datums, and no universal laws can be discovered via hypothesis testing. Empiricism also provides no knowledge of ethics and metaphysics.
This seems obviously false to me, what do you mean by pure?KnightersRevenge said:
Giardiasis said:
Agreed. Just trying to make sure to avoid solopsism. It may be redundant but I prefer to have it out in the open.
I don't think I agree entirely with this. We can never really observe 'nothing' so I don't think we make intelligent inferences about how it behaves. I am instinctively disinclined to grant concepts the same status as objects. Defining terms is important and I don't think we can say that concepts or procedures 'exist' in the same way atoms or planets exist. If you mean a different kind of existence then I think we need a different term for it.
Cool, thanks.
This is an interesting area and one Sam Harris tries to suggest could in time be grounded in empiricism in 'The Moral Landscape'. If our feelings on subjects could be accepted as 'brain states' then empiricism could be used to evaluate them. This is hypothetical to some degree but it seems reasonable to me to extrapolate from current science to a point when FMRI can be improved upon or replaced by a better technology giving us ever more access to the nature of our consciousness. Putting Ethics firmly in the realm of science and empiricism.
I mean that so long as we define and agree on terms and are using the latest version of the 'best' method for whichever task we are employing empiricism to, then it should be independent surely? That is point of having a 'method'. It is repeatable and consistent.
You can’t make intelligent inferences about how “nothing” behaves, because “nothing” doesn’t behave at all. Now the empirical method isn’t “nothing”, because it has particular attributes and it produces knowledge with which to understand the world. It is definitely something. Concepts have mind dependent existence, physical matter has mind independent existence. Easier to think of it that way than to create a new word.KnightersRevenge said:
This is completely misguided, for some reason Harris thinks that values and facts are the same thing. Also he seem to gloss over the ought/is problem.KnightersRevenge said:
Utility involves a subjective evaluation; it cannot be “measured” in the sense that you can measure the mass of an object or how long it takes for a ball to drop. It involves ordinal numbers, not cardinal numbers. People rank things in terms of preferences; they don’t measure things in terms of units of utility. Hence to claim that utility can be separated from the subjective evaluation of the practitioner is a major confusion of concepts.KnightersRevenge said:
<
The Imam of Peace
|
Woo Denial
>
