Presuppositional Apologetics

[seer]

I once asked one of my good friends who is a graduate from Oxford's philosophy department, a skilled scholasticist, and a pious fellow well on his way to becoming a Dominican munk, this question: "How do we overcome the brain in the vat problem."

He told me, "No one can. There are two reasonable choices about how to understand the world: Solipsism, or Theism. The only reason we can have for calling solipsism irrational, is because it is unlivable. However once you decide that the external world exists, then the problem goes away"

So the brain in the vat is answered by choice.

Yes, it is answered by personal preference, not deductive argument.

[shunyadragon]

I once asked one of my good friends who is a graduate from Oxford's philosophy department, a skilled scholasticist, and a pious fellow well on his way to becoming a Dominican munk, this question: "How do we overcome the brain in the vat problem."

He told me, "No one can. There are two reasonable choices about how to understand the world: Solipsism, or Theism. The only reason we can have for calling solipsism irrational, is because it is unlivable. However once you decide that the external world exists, then the problem goes away"

So the brain in the vat is answered by choice.

I will add that yes there is considerable objective evidence for the relationship of the brain and the mind and consciousness, but of course there remains many unknowns. Glenn focuses on the complexity of the problem, which is insufficient to object to natural origins of the relationship of the brain and the mind and consciousness, and is an 'argument from ignorance' that he believes science cannot explain this complexity.

Actually I choose both. I believe it is possible in the future for science to provide a detailed explanation and conclusion conclusion that yes the mind and consciousness is physically the result of the physical nature of the brain, and I also believe that this is a result of God's Creation.

[JonathanL]

I will add that yes there is considerable objective evidence for the relationship of the brain and the mind and consciousness

Keyword here is "relationship". But as soon as you start trying to go further than that, and argue that there exists an identity-relationship between the brain and M&C you've started speculating far beyond what the evidence warrants.

[shunyadragon]

Keyword here is "relationship". But as soon as you start trying to go further than that, and argue that there exists an identity-relationship between the brain and M&C you've started speculating far beyond what the evidence warrants.

Maybe yes, maybe no. 'Arguing from Ignorance,' which you claim science has not at present determined as having Natural origins.

[grmorton]

I will add that yes there is considerable objective evidence for the relationship of the brain and the mind and consciousness, but of course there remains many unknowns. Glenn focuses on the complexity of the problem, which is insufficient to object to natural origins of the relationship of the brain and the mind and consciousness, and is an 'argument from ignorance' that he believes science cannot explain this complexity.

Actually I choose both. I believe it is possible in the future for science to provide a detailed explanation and conclusion conclusion that yes the mind and consciousness is physically the result of the physical nature of the brain, and I also believe that this is a result of God's Creation.

Shunya, you don't understand the issue. All 'objective knowledge' is only sensed by the Qualia and determined to be 'objective' by the consciousness or conscienses. in other words, 'Objective knowledge' is what is agreed to by consensus but we individually sense it by the sense data we experience. No one stands above this world and experiences anything in an objective manner. We know only what is impinging upon our senses. and that includes the belief that there are other beings like me out there. I can't see or sense your qualia. I can run no experiment to prove you have Qualia. I only have faith that you actually exist. As Kant points out no one sees the thing in itself. You don't see the table, only the light reflected from the table. But you really don't even see the light. You sense wiggles in your brain that your Qualia interprets as a table. You need to do some more study in this area.

And if Objective knowledge is only that which we are told by other bodys we see out there telling us that they too see the phenomenon as well. But escape from the brain in the vat problem requires that you prove that those other bodies telling you what they see, are actually real objects like you feel your qualia is.

Furthermore, there is no real such thing as objective knowledge when one brings in the brain in the vat problem. Just because everyone of those bodies I sense tells me that this is the true objective thing in science then what do we do with cases where science has had a consensus that turned out to be wrong? It was 'objective knowledge', now it isn't? If it is even remotely possible that the 'objective knowledge might turn out to be false, then it isn't objective--it is popular knowledge. The zero value for the cosmological constant was once 'objective knowledge'. Now it isn't zero. The constancy of alpha, the electromagnetic constant was once popularly believed to be unchangeable. Now it is not. What we have is a series of popularity contensts where views in science change. Neither truth nor knowledge is determined by voting.

And unless you can prove that other people you see have qualia, does their vote, that they to sense the object you see, actually mean anything at all? Delusions agreeing with me can not define objective knowledge. So please tell me how you are going to define objective knowledge without going through this sense data problem, and ensuring that all those other observerse are real observers. This should be interesting.

[grmorton]

I once asked one of my good friends who is a graduate from Oxford's philosophy department, a skilled scholasticist, and a pious fellow well on his way to becoming a Dominican munk, this question: "How do we overcome the brain in the vat problem."

He told me, "No one can. There are two reasonable choices about how to understand the world: Solipsism, or Theism. The only reason we can have for calling solipsism irrational, is because it is unlivable. However once you decide that the external world exists, then the problem goes away"

So the brain in the vat is answered by choice.

I absolutely agree with you Leonhard and partly with what your friend said. For us to know that there is a real world is an act of faith. Believing in God is also an act of faith. Using him to escape solipsism is still using an act of faith to posit a real world that we can trust. The most amazing thing about this world I find myself in is that it starts with and ends with an act of faith. We have to have faith that the world exists, and when we are about to die, we have to have faith that our qualia won't die with our bodies.

I don't know how many people know of Boltzman brains, but given quantum and the implication that milliions of small particles are popping into and out of existence every second, called virtual particles by physicists, the Boltzman brain is the equivalent--a virtual observer of the universe, who pops into a fleeting existence before going back to where he came from.

I raise these things for one reason. Unless one believes that there is a God out there that makes sense of this world, we might as well BE a Boltzman Brain and everything we see is not really real. For the atheist, in my opinion, this is the choice they make (and agnostics are only those atheists who don't have the courage of their convictions). Our life is nothing more useful than one of these freakish brains. But the atheist can't blame God for this, for He doesn't exist (they say so) and logically the atheist has only Mindless Nature to blame; a godless meaningful world which pops him into existence for a brief period of pain before going back into that dark void from whence he came. Cursing a non-existent God is an exercise in futility.

If there is a God, then being a brain in a vat is not such a bad thing. God would have set up the game. But such a game would have purposes that we are not privy to, so cursing the existent God for our fate here would also seem to be puerile. At least under this assumption, that there is a God, God gets me out of here safely at some point in the future. lol.

[seer]

I absolutely agree with you Leonhard and partly with what your friend said. For us to know that there is a real world is an act of faith. Believing in God is also an act of faith. Using him to escape solipsism is still using an act of faith to posit a real world that we can trust. The most amazing thing about this world I find myself in is that it starts with and ends with an act of faith. We have to have faith that the world exists, and when we are about to die, we have to have faith that our qualia won't die with our bodies.

Yet they (the atheist) would fight like heck to deny that they act on, or rely on, faith on any level. And it's funny, I was just listening to William Craig this morning on Boltzmann brains.

[seer]

Shunya, you don't understand the issue....

That is an understatement...

[grmorton]

That is an understatement...

It is why I quite debating here. There is something about casting pearls before, well you know what. I got better things to do than to educate People who haven't read a single book on philosophy, or geology, or downloaded temperature data and analysed it. Too many wanted me to do their research for them--lazy ****. And when you present data that contradicts the popular view, they are all perfectly content to act as if the popular view of something is entirely un-assailable, which, is of course positing immense trust in those whom they depend upon for those views. Another act of faith. Faith is everywhere in this world. It is a pre-requisite for absolutely everything we do, everything we "know", everything we feel. Yet they look down on people of Faith.

[seer]

It is why I quite debating here. There is something about casting pearls before, well you know what. I got better things to do than to educate People who haven't read a single book on philosophy, or geology, or downloaded temperature data and analysed it. Too many wanted me to do their research for them--lazy ****. And when you present data that contradicts the popular view, they are all perfectly content to act as if the popular view of something is entirely un-assailable, which, is of course positing immense trust in those whom they depend upon for those views. Another act of faith. Faith is everywhere in this world. It is a pre-requisite for absolutely everything we do, everything we "know", everything we feel. Yet they look down on people of Faith.

Correct, their position is hypocritical. But you should not stop debating, there are a lot of lurkers whom you may be influencing for the good.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, you don't understand the issue. All 'objective knowledge' is only sensed by the Qualia and determined to be 'objective' by the consciousness or conscienses. in other words, 'Objective knowledge' is what is agreed to by consensus but we individually sense it by the sense data we experience. No one stands above this world and experiences anything in an objective manner. We know only what is impinging upon our senses. and that includes the belief that there are other beings like me out there. I can't see or sense your qualia. I can run no experiment to prove you have Qualia. I only have faith that you actually exist. As Kant points out no one sees the thing in itself. You don't see the table, only the light reflected from the table. But you really don't even see the light. You sense wiggles in your brain that your Qualia interprets as a table. You need to do some more study in this area.

And if Objective knowledge is only that which we are told by other bodys we see out there telling us that they too see the phenomenon as well. But escape from the brain in the vat problem requires that you prove that those other bodies telling you what they see, are actually real objects like you feel your qualia is.

Furthermore, there is no real such thing as objective knowledge when one brings in the brain in the vat problem. Just because everyone of those bodies I sense tells me that this is the true objective thing in science then what do we do with cases where science has had a consensus that turned out to be wrong? It was 'objective knowledge', now it isn't? If it is even remotely possible that the 'objective knowledge might turn out to be false, then it isn't objective--it is popular knowledge. The zero value for the cosmological constant was once 'objective knowledge'. Now it isn't zero. The constancy of alpha, the electromagnetic constant was once popularly believed to be unchangeable. Now it is not. What we have is a series of popularity contensts where views in science change. Neither truth nor knowledge is determined by voting.

And unless you can prove that other people you see have qualia, does their vote, that they to sense the object you see, actually mean anything at all? Delusions agreeing with me can not define objective knowledge. So please tell me how you are going to define objective knowledge without going through this sense data problem, and ensuring that all those other observerse are real observers. This should be interesting.

You sound like a Hindu. It is all an illusion. Nothing in reality exists!

[JonathanL]

You sound like a Hindu. It is all an illusion. Nothing in reality exists!

Way to miss his point.

[shunyadragon]

Way to miss his point.

There was no real point. It is all an illusion.

[JonathanL]

There was no real point. It is all an illusion.

I'm not even then one arguing with you, and I'm getting exasperated.

[grmorton]

You sound like a Hindu. It is all an illusion. Nothing in reality exists!

No, I am not, but it is clear that you haven't read a single idealist philosopher or you would understand the sense-data issue in philosophy. And you would understand that I am presenting their case (a decent philosopher can present both sides of the argument).

Even reading Descartes would be a good thing to help one understand this. Discourse on Method is his best known work. He was tired of trusting experts on so many things so he wrote:

For a long time I had remarked that it is sometimes requisite in common life to follow opinions which one knows to be most uncertain, exactly as though they were indisputable, as has been said above. But because in this case I wished to give myself entirely to the search after truth, I thought that it was necessary for me to take an -apparently opposite course, and to reject as absolutely false everything as to which I could imagine the least ground of doubt, in order to see if afterwards there remained anything in my belief that was entirely certain. This, because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wished to suppose that nothing is just as they cause us to imagine it to be; and because there are men who deceive themselves in their reasoning and fall into paralogisms, even concerning the simplest matters of geometry, and judging that I was as subject to error as was any other, I rejected as false all the reasons formerly accepted by me as demonstrations. And since all the same thoughts and conceptions which we have while awake may also come to us in sleep, without any of them being at that time true, I resolved to assumed that everything that ever entered into my mind was no more true than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately afterwards I noticed that whilst I thus wished to think all things false, it was absolutely essential that the ' I ' who thought this should be somewhat, and remarking that this truth "I think therefore I am" was so certain and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions brought forward by the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I came to the conclusion that I could receive it without scruple as the first principle of the Philosophy for which I was seeking.

Descartes, Shunya, was absolutely crucial in the development of thought that allowed science to thrive in Western Europe.