|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 8, 2017 16:58:34 GMT
I'm not answering your question because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. Unless you can explain the relevance I don't see the point. I don't even think it's an answerable question as to what a typical human mind think orange means. That would obtain ontologically by programming it into a computer. The very fact that you're seeing that orange color patch right now means that someone somewhere has programmed 0s and 1s to equal orange. You couldn't see it if it hadn't been. Unless you're going to start claiming that empiricism is not evidence for ontological existence. The relevance is whether this question is answerable without bringing subjectivity into it. I'm not doubting that computers can display orange patches. I'm asking you to explain how anything objective amounts to reference/a referent (or how anything objective amounts to something like a 0 being equal to something like an orange patch). I'm challenging that reference is coherent, qua reference, sans subjectivity. It will inevitably bring subjectivity into it if you bring everything back to human perception and the mind that processes that perception, but in doing that you've essentially eliminated a priori anything from counting as objective or purely referential (barring unverifiable and hypothetical noumena). My original point was that this isn't how a computer processes its referents. True, the only way we can confirm the "objective referent" of "0 = orange" is via our own perception, which is the only way we can confirm anything objectively exists. But if you insist this still has a subjective component because it's a subjective mind perceiving it then you've eliminated the category of objective referents from the get-go, which is kinda stacking the deck. But, allow me to bring this back to my original point that sparked this tangent: "(in) epistemic/Bayesian rationality... two Bayesians can not agree to disagree. Their priors can differ, but once they hash that out and align them, the conclusions must be identical." Now, in saying "their priors can differ," that could include whatever semantic differences you see in ordinary language. But if those Bayesians are also reductionists that agree that phenomenal reality can be modeled in binary, and they reduce their priors to such a language, and then align their priors according to that language, the method will not produce a different conclusion. That's all I meant by my original statement. Most Bayesians/epistemic rationalists also happen to be reductionists precisely for this reason, because it allows for a universal language of representation that eliminates subjectivity and the ambiguities of everyday language as much as is possible. |
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
 
|
Post by althea on Mar 8, 2017 20:35:29 GMT
In other words...you have no objective evidence to justify your beliefs, just faith. ....or are you willing to supply some empirical evidence to support your faith based claims and attempts to convert people to your belief system? I hold no faith based positions, so your statement makes no sense. Name one. Go on. I'll wait. One. Go Running away it is. ....I guess you only have an issue with faith as evidence for belief when other people do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 8, 2017 20:36:05 GMT
But if you insist this still has a subjective component because it's a subjective mind perceiving it then you've eliminated the category of objective referents from the get-go, which is kinda stacking the deck. Your task would be to support that reference can amount to something coherently objective. If you can do that, then I'd say, "Hmm, it seems that reference can be objective after all." But it seems like you're really just deflecting getting to the support/explanation in post after post. Because I'd bet you have no idea what the heck objective reference would be. Re the other part: Basically, "if people agree on enough things then they'll not come to different conclusions." I'd not argue with that, but it isn't saying much. We might as well just say, "If people agree on a conclusion then they've not come to a different conclusion." |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 4:33:28 GMT
I hold no faith based positions, so your statement makes no sense. Name one. Go on. I'll wait. One. Go Running away it is. ....I guess you only have an issue with faith as evidence for belief when other people do it. Still waiting. What is my faith based position? |
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 9, 2017 5:41:09 GMT
Running away it is. ....I guess you only have an issue with faith as evidence for belief when other people do it. Still waiting. What is my faith based position? Balls in your court, mate... Are you still playing games by responding to questions with more questions instead of empirical proof to support your beliefs? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 5:45:03 GMT
Still waiting. What is my faith based position? Balls in your court, mate... Are you still playing games by responding to questions with more questions instead of empirical proof to support your beliefs? First we're talking about evidence, not proof.
Second, I've asked you three times now to tell me a belief I hold that you don't think there is evidence for. Name one. I'm still waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2017 7:15:54 GMT
Second, I've asked you three times now to tell me a belief I hold that you don't think there is evidence for. Name one. I'm still waiting.
This one: "I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence." I have previously pointed out that this is faith-based, and you have not refuted it. You are now moving the goalposts from "holding faith-based beliefs" to "holding beliefs without evidence". That is not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 14:24:39 GMT
Second, I've asked you three times now to tell me a belief I hold that you don't think there is evidence for. Name one. I'm still waiting.
This one: "I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence." I have previously pointed out that this is faith-based, and you have not refuted it. You are now moving the goalposts from "holding faith-based beliefs" to "holding beliefs without evidence". That is not the same. Well then you're wrong, because that isn't a faith based statement. Evidence is the only reliable method for demonstrating how an aspect of reality works. Unless you can demonstrate another method that works, which I would be more than happy to learn about.
Holding faith based beliefs, is holding beliefs without evidence. No goal posts got moved, what do you think we've been talking about this entire time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 9, 2017 17:05:43 GMT
But if you insist this still has a subjective component because it's a subjective mind perceiving it then you've eliminated the category of objective referents from the get-go, which is kinda stacking the deck. Your task would be to support that reference can amount to something coherently objective. If you can do that, then I'd say, "Hmm, it seems that reference can be objective after all." But it seems like you're really just deflecting getting to the support/explanation in post after post. Because I'd bet you have no idea what the heck objective reference would be. I'm not deflecting, I just don't see you giving any clue as to what you'd accept as "coherently objective." I accept empirical referents as being objective while acknowledging that they are ultimately processed by our subjective brains interpreting sensory input. If you don't accept empirical referents as objective then there's nothing more I'm capable of arguing since you've basically denied the possibility of categorizing anything as objective a priori. Except not. People can have the same priors and come to different conclusions by using different methods. The entire point of my original post was that there is an epistemic method that will always arrive at the same conclusion if they start from the same place. Remember, you're the one that made the initial claim: "any epistemic method can be used to reach different conclusions." I countered that with an example of one that couldn't. Noting that people disagree on language isn't arguing that there isn't a possible language that those adhering to a given method can/would agree on and by using that language and the epistemic method they'd arrive at the same conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2017 19:04:36 GMT
Your task would be to support that reference can amount to something coherently objective. If you can do that, then I'd say, "Hmm, it seems that reference can be objective after all." But it seems like you're really just deflecting getting to the support/explanation in post after post. Because I'd bet you have no idea what the heck objective reference would be. I'm not deflecting, I just don't see you giving any clue as to what you'd accept as "coherently objective." I accept empirical referents as being objective while acknowledging that they are ultimately processed by our subjective brains interpreting sensory input. If you don't accept empirical referents as objective then there's nothing more I'm capable of arguing since you've basically denied the possibility of categorizing anything as objective a priori. The idea isn't whether a referent, once we've picked one out, is objective. It's whether reference is objective. If you're not arguing that reference is objective, then we can go back to the earlier point (which I'd have to review at this point, haha). If you're arguing that reference is objective, that things can somehow objectively refer to other things, or somehow objectively equal other things (you suggested equality at one point), then what I'd accept is your explanation of how things objectively refer to other things--as long as it's an explanation that's only positing objective things in the process, that actually works, etc., of course. There's a "disease" where people keep typing more and more in reply. I'm innoculated against it (though you can type as much in reply as you like. I'll be cutting it off at one thing at a time though). |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 9, 2017 19:21:27 GMT
I'm not deflecting, I just don't see you giving any clue as to what you'd accept as "coherently objective." I accept empirical referents as being objective while acknowledging that they are ultimately processed by our subjective brains interpreting sensory input. If you don't accept empirical referents as objective then there's nothing more I'm capable of arguing since you've basically denied the possibility of categorizing anything as objective a priori. The idea isn't whether a referent, once we've picked one out, is objective. It's whether reference is objective. If you're not arguing that reference is objective, then we can go back to the earlier point (which I'd have to review at this point, haha). If you're arguing that reference is objective, that things can somehow objectively refer to other things, or somehow objectively equal other things (you suggested equality at one point), then what I'd accept is your explanation of how things objectively refer to other things--as long as it's an explanation that's only positing objective things in the process, that actually works, etc., of course. Oh, OK, I see the problem. I did not meant to imply that the terms "referent" or "reference" were objective, nor the entire process by which symbols come to refer to objects; merely the objects the symbols refers to. So in saying "orange is the referent of 0," I merely meant that the actual color orange that one sees is objective. The mutual agreement on the language is relative (relative to the many minds agreeing on the language itself), so it has an innately subjective component. But in binary computing and representation we don't really see/hear the language itself the way we do in text or speech; we just see the referent. So when I post the orange spot, you're just seeing the referent, you aren't seeing/hearing the binary language involved in creating it. That's one thing that makes binary truly universal because we DO just see the referents. Is that clear now? |
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 10, 2017 3:39:39 GMT
This one: "I've said you should base your beliefs on reality, which is to say, on evidence." I have previously pointed out that this is faith-based, and you have not refuted it. You are now moving the goalposts from "holding faith-based beliefs" to "holding beliefs without evidence". That is not the same. Well then you're wrong, because that isn't a faith based statement. Evidence is the only reliable method for demonstrating how an aspect of reality works. Unless you can demonstrate another method that works, which I would be more than happy to learn about.
Holding faith based beliefs, is holding beliefs without evidence. No goal posts got moved, what do you think we've been talking about this entire time?
If it's not a statement based in faith, what empirical evidence do you base it upon? Why should people base their beliefs on demonstrating how an aspect of reality works? What beyond your faith in your own belief system, your own subjective values, supports that claim? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 10, 2017 4:05:53 GMT
Well then you're wrong, because that isn't a faith based statement. Evidence is the only reliable method for demonstrating how an aspect of reality works. Unless you can demonstrate another method that works, which I would be more than happy to learn about.
Holding faith based beliefs, is holding beliefs without evidence. No goal posts got moved, what do you think we've been talking about this entire time?
If it's not a statement based in faith, what empirical evidence do you base it upon? Why should people base their beliefs on demonstrating how an aspect of reality works? What beyond your faith in your own belief system, your own subjective values, supports that claim? The simple fact that nothing besides evidence reliably demonstrates and predicts how reality works.
Now, you're really done at this point. You've been droning on for awhile, and you just keep going back to claiming I have faith, which I think you think is some inflammatory comment. But it's just silly, so I'm seriously done with you at this point. Try again when you have a coherent point to make.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 10, 2017 5:47:16 GMT
If it's not a statement based in faith, what empirical evidence do you base it upon? Why should people base their beliefs on demonstrating how an aspect of reality works? What beyond your faith in your own belief system, your own subjective values, supports that claim? The simple fact that nothing besides evidence reliable demonstrates and predicts how reality works.
Now, you're really done at this point. You've been droning on for awhile, and you just keep going back to claiming I have faith, which I think you think is some inflammatory comment. But it's just silly, so I'm seriously done with you at this point. Try again when you have a coherent point to make.
Why should understanding how reality works - rather than striving for happiness, or trying to be a good person, or any number of other things various people may think is the point of their existence and a much better basis upon which to form a belief or value system - be the top priority for all humans everywhere? You still have offered us nothing more than your own faith-based justification for believing so. ...we're still all waiting for you to offer the same standard of evidence to support your personal beliefs that you expect other people to offer in support of their own beliefs. Saying you're done with me is just you once again running away and refusing to answer questions or offer the same standard of evidence to support your own belief and faith based claims that you expect of the other posters here. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 10, 2017 5:52:32 GMT
Why should understanding how reality works - rather than striving for happiness, or trying to be a good person, or any number of other things various people may think is the point of their existence and a much better basis upon which to form a belief or value system - be the top priority for all humans everywhere? You still have offered us nothing more than your own faith-based justification for believing so. ...we're still all waiting for you to offer the same standard of evidence to support your personal beliefs that you expect other people to offer in support of their own beliefs. Saying you're done with me is just you once again running away and refusing to answer questions or offer the same standard of evidence to support your own belief and faith based claims that you expect of the other posters here. All you're doing is trying to justify believing things that aren't true.
Saying I have a faith based position over and over, doesn't change that, or mean that I do.
You're all out. Bye.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 10, 2017 6:07:08 GMT
Why should understanding how reality works - rather than striving for happiness, or trying to be a good person, or any number of other things various people may think is the point of their existence and a much better basis upon which to form a belief or value system - be the top priority for all humans everywhere? You still have offered us nothing more than your own faith-based justification for believing so. ...we're still all waiting for you to offer the same standard of evidence to support your personal beliefs that you expect other people to offer in support of their own beliefs. Saying you're done with me is just you once again running away and refusing to answer questions or offer the same standard of evidence to support your own belief and faith based claims that you expect of the other posters here. All you're doing is trying to justify believing things that aren't true.
Saying I have a faith based position over and over, doesn't change that, or mean that I do.
You're all out. Bye.
Saying you base your beliefs on evidence rather than faith over and over means nothing if we're supposed to take your word on blind faith - which is the only option here because you refuse to provide any actual evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 10, 2017 6:12:31 GMT
All you're doing is trying to justify believing things that aren't true.
Saying I have a faith based position over and over, doesn't change that, or mean that I do.
You're all out. Bye.
Saying you base your beliefs on evidence rather than faith over and over means nothing if we're supposed to take your word on blind faith - which is the only option here because you refuse to provide any actual evidence. I did. The only evidence required, is that evidence is the only demonstrated reliable method for determining fact from fiction. Already explained to you numerous times.
Try listening.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 10, 2017 6:36:09 GMT
Saying you base your beliefs on evidence rather than faith over and over means nothing if we're supposed to take your word on blind faith - which is the only option here because you refuse to provide any actual evidence. I did. The only evidence required, is that evidence is the only demonstrated reliable method for determining fact from fiction. Already explained to you numerous times.
Try listening.
You have yet to provide evidence to support your claim that is what everyone should base their beliefs upon. All we have so far is your word that seeking truth is the only valid basis for forming beliefs. That might be true for you - and I'm more than willing to believe it is, based on the evidence of your posting here - but you'll need better evidence than that to convince us it should be applied to all humans everywhere, that their own basis for forming beliefs is somehow invalid or incorrect if it doesn't match yours. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 10, 2017 7:16:07 GMT
If it's not a statement based in faith, what empirical evidence do you base it upon? Why should people base their beliefs on demonstrating how an aspect of reality works? What beyond your faith in your own belief system, your own subjective values, supports that claim? The simple fact that nothing besides evidence reliably demonstrates and predicts how reality works. This is an unproven statement. Reading your other posts I'm not even sure you have provided evidence for this assertion. Therefore, you are believing this based on faith. I can't tell you if there's another method to determine how reality works (reality is subjective anyway), but I am not claiming that another method does not exist. And even if no other method besides evidence existed to determine how reality works: Anybody can claim that personal experiences count as evidence, including spiritual ones. And even if they don't: I am paraphrasing Althea's question here. Why should anybody base their beliefs on evidence? As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves they can base their beliefs on anything that works for them. Only if they try to convert others or ask certain behaviours from others should they be required to support their beliefs, preferably with evidence. This goes for you as well. |
|
