A colossal accident?

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by James1215

2 is a concept which includes 1. Twice. It is not a proposition to say that 1 plus 1 equals 2; it was already given in 1 and 2. Tautologies!

....1.......Where is the 2?......1.....still no 2. A quantity of 1 and another quantity of 1 do not imply 2 until you add them. Knowledge gained.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by James1215

I have already shown how it is non-contradictory to hypothesise empiricism.

Where? You still haven't asserted anything but the dogmatic "experience is required for knowledge". Switching synonyms still doesn't change anything, it is still a proposition which is a logical contradiction as BR pointed out. You still don't have any evidence for it, and so on.

Why not come up with a hypothesis of your own? It would be just as empirical as mine

Of what?

. As you both admit, the logic of maths has nothing to do with reality, we just happen to find things which we can readily describe with maths here.

I am not sure what SoG said, but it is clear to me that the universe bends itself to the mathematical forms which transcend it. A triangle does not need the universe to exist, the universe needs the triangle to exist. G-d is a mathematician.

Can you use pi for the earth? Maybe, but only after you ascertain empirically the shape.

What does that have to do with anything? Pi was the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter long before the earth was formed and will be long after.

Can you use Euclidean geometry for another hypothetical project?

Sure, why not?

Maths will not tell you, you have to work that out by empirical comparison.

Mathematics can tell you about hypothetical geometry all day without empirical comparison.

As could we all. Do you have reason to believe that though?

Now you are back to the long refuted verificationism. We need no empirical reality to verify mathematical truths.

It still does not affect empiricism!

Only in so far as you are still making the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence claim" You say there is no alternative to empiricism and then we demonstrate there is.

We are finding out that in this dream, certain testable predictions come true based on hypotheses backed up with evidence.

Which could all be a dream as well.

That is so. You have shown that dubito is a paradox

Where and how?

and maths is a tautological system with no necessary relationship to reality.

Reality obviously conforms to math as I demonstrated. The universe depends on them, not the other way around.

Neither of these produces knowledge!

Both of them does as we haqve contiually demonstrated. You repeat, I repeat.

Only experience as yet does...

How do you know you are experiencing reality again? That's right, you don't.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

It does not have to be the 5 well-known senses. We don't see, hear, feel (with skin), taste or smell that we are hungry, but we still perceive it.

Empiricism is about sensory input and we are talking about a theory of epistemology, not if I get ambiguous feeling about something. In case you forgot, here is what Empiricism is...

There is no source of knowledge in other than sense experience.

Do you get it yet? If appears to impact one or more senses, then it's empirical. Feeling hungry is probably justifiable. Rational thought is not, however, about sense experience. You cannot perceive a mind or a thought. You don't experience ideas, you conceive them. You don't perceive logic, you mentally construct it.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

I have proved it, as much as any proposition needs to be proved: I have given reason to believe. Remember inductive reasoning...? With evidence for, and no evidence against, empiricism has potentially the same pedigree as the best scientific theories.

This is not a proof but a vague "hypothesis" or theory. The problem is that your taking perceptual faculties to be reliable evidence. However, you still haven't gotten around to clearly demonstrating perception is reliable other than to say that the empirical evidence suggests that it is. It seems to me that there is no non-circular way of arguing for the reliability of one's perceptual faculties and empiricism.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

If you follow carefully, it does not matter where our ideas come from. If we are to have reason to believe in them, they must be evidenced by experience.

Not only are you evading the question, you re-engaged inconsistent reasoning. If we have ideas, we must must have evidence via experience to validate them? This is patently untrue. We do not have validate with empiricism knowledge derived from other means. Where is this written?

If you want me to argue that thoughts are perceived, I can do. I wouldn't make you try to argue that we don't perceive them, or that they come from the realm of Reason, I wouldn't be that mean.

Special pleading here. In addition, I don't need to defend a position I don't hold. I'm not arguing empiricism isn't valid, I just don't agree with it as being valid an epistemology, which holds that the source of all knowledge is sense based.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

As you both admit, the logic of maths has nothing to do with reality, we just happen to find things which we can readily describe with maths here. Can you use pi for the earth?

Mathematics isn't about making true statements, it's about finding proofs that can go beyond sense experience. Mathematics is axiomatic as they employ rules and are not tautologies.

[James1215]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

....1.......Where is the 2?......1.....still no 2. A quantity of 1 and another quantity of 1 do not imply 2 until you add them. Knowledge gained.

2 is 1+1. 2 is twice 1. If you don't know that, you don't know what 2 is. Also, we're not talking quantities and the perception of whether they are being added or not, we're talking about reason.

[James1215]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

Empiricism is about sensory input and we are talking about a theory of epistemology, not if I get ambiguous feeling about something. In case you forgot, here is what Empiricism is...

There is no source of knowledge in other than sense experience.

Do you get it yet? If appears to impact one or more senses, then it's empirical. Feeling hungry is probably justifiable. Rational thought is not, however, about sense experience. You cannot perceive a mind or a thought. You don't experience ideas, you conceive them. You don't perceive logic, you mentally construct it.

Rational thought is either about sense experience, in which case it can lead to knowledge in a manner totally compatible with empiricism, or it is reason alone, divorced from the observed and incapable of providing knowledge.

What you want to talk about is the psychology of thinking - how it is we come to think. However, you maintain that thoughts are not experienced, which makes evaluating them impossible. If you want to talk about how thoughts are caused, you need to reconcile the intentionality you attribute to them (as a Christian) with the fact you claim we do not experience them. And some evidence that people are generally rational would be useful, else it is not the Form of Reason (say) which is giving rise to them, but the Form of Sloppy Thinking.

Final question: Do you perceive that you are thinking? Are you thinking?

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

Rational thought is either about sense experience, in which case it can lead to knowledge in a manner totally compatible with empiricism, or it is reason alone, divorced from the observed and incapable of providing knowledge.

As an empiricist, that's your assertion that rational though is incapable of providing knowledge. Dubito alone dispels this assertion.

What you want to talk about is the psychology of thinking

What I want to do is discuss your assertion that thought is sense experience. You've been dodging the question ever since you made the assertion. The question is what senses are used to experience thought?

However, you maintain that thoughts are not experienced, which makes evaluating them impossible. If you want to talk about how thoughts are caused, you need to reconcile the intentionality you attribute to them (as a Christian) with the fact you claim we do not experience them. And some evidence that people are generally rational would be useful, else it is not the Form of Reason (say) which is giving rise to them, but the Form of Sloppy Thinking.

I'm here to discuss epistemology. Clearly you want to cloud the matter by expanding the scope to include other disciplines which are not topical. Furthermore, my Christian beliefs is not relevant for the purpose of this discussion.

Final question: Do you perceive that you are thinking? Are you thinking?

If you are perceiving that you are thinking, what senses are being used?

[James1215]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

Mathematics isn't about making true statements, it's about finding proofs that can go beyond sense experience. Mathematics is axiomatic as they employ rules and are not tautologies.

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.

Maths is about making true statements, they just don't amount to knowledge. The nearest thing to knowledge one can have within maths is the memory of how to demonstrate logic, ie to demonstrate what was already given. These statements have nothing to do with sense experience per se, so we cannot make a relationship between them or form a hierarchy with maths at the top and reality below. It is meaningless to say that maths is beyond sense experience when it could be below, behind, to the side of... etc etc. Maths does use specific types of axioms, but maths as a whole is not axiomatic in the sense of assumed to be true because its truth is demonstrable. 1+1=2 because 1 and 2 are defined in relation to each other, and 1+1 cannot equal anything else. Finally, many argue that mathematics is tautologous, e.g. Wittgenstein, because everything in maths is deducible from given principles and relations.

[James1215]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

As an empiricist, that's your assertion that rational though is incapable of providing knowledge. Dubito alone dispels this assertion.

What I want to do is discuss your assertion that thought is sense experience. You've been dodging the question ever since you made the assertion. The question is what senses are used to experience thought?

I'm here to discuss epistemology. Clearly you want to cloud the matter by expanding the scope to include other disciplines which are not topical. Furthermore, my Christian beliefs is not relevant for the purpose of this discussion.

If you are perceiving that you are thinking, what senses are being used?

Well, do you perceive that you are thinking? I think you do! I can certainly say that I am aware of my thoughts, even if I am not sure how I am able to 'hear' them. I'm sitting here using 1st person to engage you directly, wherever you are right now, anticipating that just for a moment I am controlling your brain. You are forced to follow my thoughts by reading and understanding me... [evil cackle]. Can you honestly say you do not know your own conscious mind?

My point about Christian theology is that it requires that we are able to direct our thoughts and action deliberately. How can we direct our thoughts if we are unaware of them?

As to dubito, how can you think that is any kind of knowledge? All it is saying, if non-paradoxical, is that "If we are doubting, then we're doubting". That's not knowledge...

[James1215]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

The problem is that your taking perceptual faculties to be reliable evidence. However, you still haven't gotten around to clearly demonstrating perception is reliable other than to say that the empirical evidence suggests that it is. It seems to me that there is no non-circular way of arguing for the reliability of one's perceptual faculties and empiricism.

No one needs to show that perception is 'reliable'. That is asking something which cannot be done. Reliable with regards to what? There is no standard against which to compare the fruit of perception, except for more perceptions. If you were to live as if no perceptions mattered, you'd constantly be plagued by those unimportant feelings and perceptions of a wasted and painful life.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.

Maths is about making true statements, they just don't amount to knowledge. The nearest thing to knowledge one can have within maths is the memory of how to demonstrate logic, ie to demonstrate what was already given. These statements have nothing to do with sense experience per se, so we cannot make a relationship between them or form a hierarchy with maths at the top and reality below. It is meaningless to say that maths is beyond sense experience when it could be below, behind, to the side of... etc etc. Maths does use specific types of axioms, but maths as a whole is not axiomatic in the sense of assumed to be true because its truth is demonstrable. 1+1=2 because 1 and 2 are defined in relation to each other, and 1+1 cannot equal anything else. Finally, many argue that mathematics is tautologous, e.g. Wittgenstein, because everything in maths is deducible from given principles and relations.

There are many that argue that mathematics is axiomatic, hence your argument that others may hold it to be tautological does not make it true, the argumentum ad populum fallacy. To elaborate, there are many that argue (in fact pretty much everybody today) argue that empiricism as a theory of knowledge is dead and yet here we are dealing with you. Furthermore, presuming a mathematical statement as tautological does not make all mathematics necessarily tautological, which is a form of the fallacy of composition.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

Well, do you perceive that you are thinking? I think you do! I can certainly say that I am aware of my thoughts, even if I am not sure how I am able to 'hear' them. I'm sitting here using 1st person to engage you directly, wherever you are right now, anticipating that just for a moment I am controlling your brain. You are forced to follow my thoughts by reading and understanding me... [evil cackle]. Can you honestly say you do not know your own conscious mind?

Simply, your are aware of your thoughts, you are not perceiving them. Awareness and perception are two different things. Your are engaged in equivocating when you conflate the two. For example, I may be aware that a certain person exits but I may not be necessarily perceiving them at the moment.

My point about Christian theology is that it requires that we are able to direct our thoughts and action deliberately. How can we direct our thoughts if we are unaware of them?

Again, you are presuming thoughts are perceived.

As to dubito, how can you think that is any kind of knowledge? All it is saying, if non-paradoxical, is that "If we are doubting, then we're doubting". That's not knowledge...

This is a bit of a straw man argument. That's not what Dubito asserts. Please refer to the previous posts as to what it really entails.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by James1215

No one needs to show that perception is 'reliable'. That is asking something which cannot be done. Reliable with regards to what? There is no standard against which to compare the fruit of perception, except for more perceptions.

If perception is not reliable, then how do we know them to be true? If they are not known to be true then it isn't knowledge but a belief. You are building your argument on the fact that we know perception is a source of knowledge because we can perceive it to be the case, which is why epsitemological empiricism fails as a theory of knowledge. The reasoning is self-refuting.

If you were to live as if no perceptions mattered, you'd constantly be plagued by those unimportant feelings and perceptions of a wasted and painful life.

Again, you are attempting to shift the argument to something that isn't relevant. We are not arguing that perceptions do not matter, we are arguing, from an epistemological sense, that perception does not represent the sole source of knowledge.