Comments on: Applied Epistemology, or, What Does “Real” Mean Anyway? http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/real-meaning/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:36:10 +0000 hourly 1 By: Enfranchised Mind » The Sin of Intellectualism http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/real-meaning/#comment-37082 Enfranchised Mind » The Sin of Intellectualism Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:47:00 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=700#comment-37082 [...] About the same time I lost math, I realized in talking to my physics major friends, researching Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and reflecting on abstract algebra that there’s simply no logical justification for the applicability of math to our real world. Mathematics is just a game we play with symbols: the fact that it has anything to do with our real world is a complete coincidence. (More on this idea over at Applied Epistemology, or, What Does “Real” Mean Anyway?.) [...] [...] About the same time I lost math, I realized in talking to my physics major friends, researching Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and reflecting on abstract algebra that there’s simply no logical justification for the applicability of math to our real world. Mathematics is just a game we play with symbols: the fact that it has anything to do with our real world is a complete coincidence. (More on this idea over at Applied Epistemology, or, What Does “Real” Mean Anyway?.) [...]

]]> By: Robert Fischer http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/real-meaning/#comment-33677 Robert Fischer Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:03:32 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=700#comment-33677 There are certainly physical things happening in the brain which correlate to reported conscious experience. However, the consciousness itself can't be captured. For instance, when I close my eyes, I'm envisioning the lakeside cabin that my family used to have. Physiologically, they can see that there are synapses fire like the ones that fire when I see the picture for real. They can detect my lowering blood pressure and the like. However, despite seeing these consequences of experience, the experience itself is still unaccounted for. There is still a picture which exists somewhere which is unaccounted for: I can see it! But where is this "I" located, and where is the thing that is seen? The "subtle nuance" which is being missed in a materialistic approach is the very experience of consciousness itself! There are certainly physical things happening in the brain which correlate to reported conscious experience. However, the consciousness itself can’t be captured. For instance, when I close my eyes, I’m envisioning the lakeside cabin that my family used to have. Physiologically, they can see that there are synapses fire like the ones that fire when I see the picture for real. They can detect my lowering blood pressure and the like.

However, despite seeing these consequences of experience, the experience itself is still unaccounted for. There is still a picture which exists somewhere which is unaccounted for: I can see it! But where is this “I” located, and where is the thing that is seen? The “subtle nuance” which is being missed in a materialistic approach is the very experience of consciousness itself!

]]> By: Sanjeev http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/real-meaning/#comment-33676 Sanjeev Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:32:51 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=700#comment-33676 You say: "My consciousness exists and I can take that as undeniably “real”, but neither science nor math — empiricism nor pure logic — can account for that truth. " I can't understand the above is right. From what I have read. consciousness is completely accountable inside the brain. advances in neuroscience and technologies associated with it (e.g. fMRI), has helped us explain consciousness to a certain level. It is all explainable as electrical impulses in the brain: the firing of neurons. Yes, the technology isn't perfect and can't explain the subtle nuances of all brain functions just yet. But neuroscience is making steady progress in this area. Maybe I understand your statement wrongly. But basically, I am looking at it from a materialistic point of view. You say: “My consciousness exists and I can take that as undeniably “real”, but neither science nor math — empiricism nor pure logic — can account for that truth. ”

I can’t understand the above is right. From what I have read. consciousness is completely accountable inside the brain. advances in neuroscience and technologies associated with it (e.g. fMRI), has helped us explain consciousness to a certain level. It is all explainable as electrical impulses in the brain: the firing of neurons. Yes, the technology isn’t perfect and can’t explain the subtle nuances of all brain functions just yet. But neuroscience is making steady progress in this area.

Maybe I understand your statement wrongly. But basically, I am looking at it from a materialistic point of view.

]]> By: Robert Fischer http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/real-meaning/#comment-33649 Robert Fischer Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:59:43 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=700#comment-33649 You missed my argument about atheists -- re-read the paragraph that starts with "The problem that atheists seem to repeat" and the one that follows. As for the probability epistemology -- what's the evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist? And what do you mean by "exist" in that statement? Re-read the paragraph that starts with "3) Well, God exists in some sense". I think exploring this one question will illustrate a lot of my problems with probabilistic epistemology in a really concrete way. You missed my argument about atheists — re-read the paragraph that starts with “The problem that atheists seem to repeat” and the one that follows.

As for the probability epistemology — what’s the evidence that the Christian God doesn’t exist? And what do you mean by “exist” in that statement? Re-read the paragraph that starts with “3) Well, God exists in some sense”.

I think exploring this one question will illustrate a lot of my problems with probabilistic epistemology in a really concrete way.

]]> By: Bill Mill http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/real-meaning/#comment-33648 Bill Mill Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:11:20 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=700#comment-33648 > Well, God exists in some sense — minimally, God exists to the same extent that unicorns exist You believe that Dawkins would disagree with that statement? I've never read him, so I can't argue about him in particular. I've always found Sagan's "Dragon in the garage" argument quite similar to what I've thought (I explicitly don't say compelling - I like it because it matched my beliefs in retrospect. I don't know quite what I found compelling evidence to attain my belief): http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm . Which lines up nicely with the Bayesian probability epistemology: There seems to me to be a lot of evidence that God, in the Judeo-Christian conception at least, doesn't exist, but no evidence of existence is not evidence of no existence. Therefore, I allow this type of God an extremely small probability of existence, but pending positive evidence, act as if its probability is the same as that of unicorns. I will have to read and think about your arguments against probabalistic belief more before I respond to them. > Well, God exists in some sense — minimally, God exists to the same extent that unicorns exist

You believe that Dawkins would disagree with that statement? I’ve never read him, so I can’t argue about him in particular.

I’ve always found Sagan’s “Dragon in the garage” argument quite similar to what I’ve thought (I explicitly don’t say compelling – I like it because it matched my beliefs in retrospect. I don’t know quite what I found compelling evidence to attain my belief): http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm .

Which lines up nicely with the Bayesian probability epistemology: There seems to me to be a lot of evidence that God, in the Judeo-Christian conception at least, doesn’t exist, but no evidence of existence is not evidence of no existence. Therefore, I allow this type of God an extremely small probability of existence, but pending positive evidence, act as if its probability is the same as that of unicorns.

I will have to read and think about your arguments against probabalistic belief more before I respond to them.

]]>