[quote]sasquatch wrote:
nephorm
You seem to like to paint me as both a Sophist arguer(?) and radical skeptic. [/quote]
Sasquatch,
I tried to qualify my example by saying that I wasn’t attempting to actually demonstrate your or pookie’s positions. I apologize if it seems like I portrayed you incorrectly, I was merely using two common names to the thread and exaggerating their positions somewhat to demonstrate the problem.
You can’t be a radical skeptic, btw, because you are a theist.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I know scientists like to explain everything and it appears what you suggest is that if there is a good probability that it is so, then it is so. I’ll agree that a high probability oes exist, but why am I scrutinized so for saying ‘it might not be so.’
[/quote]
Also, I was really just trying to explain Descartes’ response to the position of radical skepticism, rather than trying to call you out on it. Sorry if it came across that way.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Orbitalboner wrote:
EXACTLY vroom. We ‘believe’ that we are entities that think. This is what I was getting at when I was plagiarizing Nietzsche. Descartes’ declaration is merely a very strong belief as opposed to a factual statement. Good work vroom, brilliant!
Isn’t that what I said?[/quote]
EXACTLY nephorm, brilliant!
nephorm
I have no problem with the way you portrayed me or my thoughts. My post was not intended to be accusatory in nature. I tried to incorporate your characterizations of my thoughts, with my thoughts, and argue that I’m not just trying to be a contradictive voice here. My thoughts, to me, are genuine. Not soley to cause a non-sensical type argument.
[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
EXACTLY nephorm, brilliant![/quote]
Now you’re just patronizing me.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
nephorm
You seem to like to paint me as both a Sophist arguer(?) and radical skeptic.
Sasquatch,
I tried to qualify my example by saying that I wasn’t attempting to actually demonstrate your or pookie’s positions. I apologize if it seems like I portrayed you incorrectly, I was merely using two common names to the thread and exaggerating their positions somewhat to demonstrate the problem.
You can’t be a radical skeptic, btw, because you are a theist.
[/quote]
Not that I want to be labeled a radical skeptic, but why can’t one be a r…s…
if one is a theist?
This is not meant to be argumentative. I want you to explain why one cancels the other.
My understanding–though at a basic level I’m sure–would not make one obsolete because of the other. Help me for future reference.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I tried to incorporate your characterizations of my thoughts, with my thoughts, and argue that I’m not just trying to be a contradictive voice here. My thoughts, to me, are genuine. Not soley to cause a non-sensical type argument.[/quote]
Cool… I got you.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Not that I want to be labeled a radical skeptic, but why can’t one be a r…s…
if one is a theist?
[/quote]
There are two forms of theism: natural and revealed. Natural theology depends on the derivation of divine law through the understanding of the world, and the application of the senses and experience. If one believes that all of that information is false, or possibly false, or unreliable, then one cannot subscribe to natural theology.
If one believes that religion is revealed, then one believes that God has personally imparted his message to mankind. This, then, is not subject to doubt. If one DOES doubt it, then one is not truly theistic in this sense, either.
sweet!!
now i don’t hafta call myself atheist. im a natural theist. that fits me like a glove.
nephorm,
you explained a difficult concept rather well, although i had to read it about four times…
has any progress been made since “i think therefore i am?” i can now see how we know we exist because we think, but i don’t really see anything beyond that. it seems to me that the only thing for certain is that our senses exist because we have them, but we still question the truth or reliability of those senses. is there anyway to figure things out without being circular or dogmatic?
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
sweet!!
now i don’t hafta call myself atheist. im a natural theist. that fits me like a glove.[/quote]
Are you sure? I’m still rereading to get a better grasp on the two’ideologies’
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Here is an easy trick you guys can try and then for those of you who actually take the 10 minutes to do it, can tell me what force exactly is at work.[/quote]
10 minutes my ass. I’ve been fucking around with aluminum foil for almost half an hour…
Anyway, I finally got it to balance. I also got it to spin. I didn’t use the scarf, I pulled my t-shirt over my mouth. Good enough. I also had to put a small pile of nickels under the thumbtack to raise it a bit; the foil was scraping the table.
From what I can gather; it’s air that’s causing it to move. More precisely, air near your hand that gets heated up and then rises. The foil is extremely lightly balanced and offers nearly no friction (the point of the thumbtack) to resist movement.
So you don’t need to breathe on it to get it to move (in fact, mine tends to flip up and fall of the thumbtack if I exhale anywhere near it); the slight air movement caused by the heat of your hand seems to be sufficient.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
(about string theory)
Unfortunately, I haven’t had time to keep current, so perhaps pookie can answer that one.[/quote]
AFAIK, String theory is still going strong. Whether it’s because of its basic validity or because thousands of physicists have invested their career in it might be debatable.
String theory math, with its 11 or 10 dimensions (our “common” 4 dimensions, plus some 6 others “curled up” on themselves) is nearly impossible to follow. At least for me.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
has any progress been made since “i think therefore i am?” i can now see how we know we exist because we think, but i don’t really see anything beyond that. it seems to me that the only thing for certain is that our senses exist because we have them, but we still question the truth or reliability of those senses. is there anyway to figure things out without being circular or dogmatic?[/quote]
I’m not an expert on current epistemological philosophies, but you can understand the progress of radical doubt to have started in the late middle ages, and continued through to the present. Radical doubt or skepticism is really the root of nihilism, historicism, relativism, etc; all of the value-free philosophies that attempt to convince men that all ethics, justice, and morality is a product of convention rather than inherent in the order of the universe. It is an insoluble problem, at root, but we can make some headway in the realm of ethics. I’ll paraphrase Strauss, as I’m really borrowing his argument.
Nietzsche pointed out in Thus Spake Zarathustra that there is an inherent problem in comparing cultures. He states that there are one thousand cultures, but only examines four by name. Notably, he discusses Jerusalem and Athens. Now, these cultures are no better or worse than the other 996 cultures, but they are interesting because the culture of Greece was inclined to place perfection of the self was the highest good, and Jerusalem, on the other hand, placed fear and faithfulness to God as the highest. Nietzsche speaks reverently of the Mosaic Law, of the Jewish tables. But he points out that they are only tables, no better or worse than any other culture’s. In fact, the various cultures conflict, and this is problematic.
Nietzsche’s response is to radically reject all values, but in contrast to nihilism, to generate new ones (a trans-valuation of all values is the highest function of the superman). Now I’ll skip ahead to the alternative, since I don’t have the space to reproduce the entire argument. Socrates gives us the idea of noetic heterogeity, or the ability to differentiate by kind, utilizing human reason. Rather than exacerbating the modern problem, we ought to return to classical philosophy, and the examination of the underlying differences in kind. That’s the summary… essentially modern philosophy has lowered the standard, and only made things worse. You will find little guiding light in modern philosophy.
I certainly don’t know if any progress has been made or not, however, there is at least no reason to assume the reality of the great deceiver as opposed to that of our senses.
Perhaps we can take some notes from quantum probability and simply assume a random equal chance that everything is or is not a deception. With a 50/50 chance at spin “deception” and spin “reality” perhaps there are appropriate tests that can be devised?
Alternately, perhaps it doesn’t make any difference!
If the great decievers deception is so good as to be the same as providing reality, why not treat it as reality until it shows an inconsistency? This implies that the only way the great deceiver can actually be the great deceiver is if the deception is so great that there never appears a crack in reality which reveals the great deceiver.
After all, what good is a great deceiver if the deception cannot be maintained? That would only be the not so great deceiver, and no great deceiver since deception of the big bang would allow themselves to be revealed in such a manner.
Anyway, silliness aside, if the deception is perfect, then is it really a deception anyway, prior to the veil coming off (if the probability dissolves into a measured state of false)… or just a change in the state of reality?
Who knows, maybe I am just deceiving myself…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, silliness aside, if the deception is perfect, then is it really a deception anyway, prior to the veil coming off (if the probability dissolves into a measured state of false)… or just a change in the state of reality?
[/quote]
That’s essentially the general line of thinking, yes. Insufficient to guarantee knowledge of the whole, but reasonable enough to follow in practice. Epistemology at that level really isn’t about practicality, of course.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
sweet!!
now i don’t hafta call myself atheist. im a natural theist. that fits me like a glove.
Are you sure? I’m still rereading to get a better grasp on the two’ideologies’[/quote]
if nephorm’s definition of natural theism is right then im the quintessential natural theist.
i don’t believe that the senses are the only things that exist, but i do believe that the senses are the only things worth abstracting upon. as far as i can tell, natural theism is all about this; and revealed theism takes an initial leap into abstraction, bypassing the senses.
Good thread guys.
I’d just like to apologize to y’all though…
As soon as I die, all of you will cease to exist.
I will try to stay alive for as long as I can, it’s the least I can do.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Here is an easy trick you guys can try and then for those of you who actually take the 10 minutes to do it, can tell me what force exactly is at work.
10 minutes my ass. I’ve been fucking around with aluminum foil for almost half an hour…
Anyway, I finally got it to balance. I also got it to spin. I didn’t use the scarf, I pulled my t-shirt over my mouth. Good enough. I also had to put a small pile of nickels under the thumbtack to raise it a bit; the foil was scraping the table.
From what I can gather; it’s air that’s causing it to move. More precisely, air near your hand that gets heated up and then rises. The foil is extremely lightly balanced and offers nearly no friction (the point of the thumbtack) to resist movement.
So you don’t need to breathe on it to get it to move (in fact, mine tends to flip up and fall of the thumbtack if I exhale anywhere near it); the slight air movement caused by the heat of your hand seems to be sufficient.
[/quote]
I was skeptical of this as well, so a couple times I dunked my hand in ice water for a few minutes and then tried, spun like a charm while my hand was still cold. I also tried putting a glove on and while I didn’t get quite the visualisation I needed I did still get movement.
Also, try this, sit there with your hand in the same position, don’t visualise anything and watch tv for a few minutes or more if you like, unless you start subconciously start thinking of it spinning, it won’t spin. I have set for a long time without it spinning and then, tried and got it to start spinning right up.
Give it another try and maybe try some of these other things I mentioned.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I was skeptical of this as well, so a couple times I dunked my hand in ice water for a few minutes and then tried, spun like a charm while my hand was still cold.[/quote]
Doing that will usually cause your body to send more blood to your hand to warm it up as fast as possible… I didn’t try that one though.
I was actually watching TV while it was spinning. It only stopped then I inadvertently let my hand move a little and knocked the foil off its tack. Even to get it spinning, I simply placed my hand close to it; didn’t consciously think about it spinning. It was kinda cool when it did, though.
[quote]Give it another try and maybe try some of these other things I mentioned.
V[/quote]
I got enough funny looks from my wife to last me a few months.
If you can show that it’s actually an ESP or telekinetic phenomenon, you can claim a 1 million dollar prize at http://www.randi.org