What is it with you guys that when someone rationally challenges your illogically held views you invariably respond with adolescent insults? Oh, never mind, the question answers itself.
He frequently calls most anything Begging the Question because of the (usually) necessary assumptions in the premises.
Assumptions are never “necessary”, axioms are. When the existence of something is claimed where there is no evidence of that existence, it is Begging the Question. Just because most people assume (and you know what they say about those who 'assume', don't you?) things to be true that are not, is not my problem. It is theirs. But I am not going to let it pass simply to get along. That is a major factor of what is wrong in these discussions, the assumption that things that don't exist do. It is mistaking fantasy for reality. (The one necessary qualification is a thought exercise where the assumption is obliquely stated, such as: Imagine you are riding a beam of light.)
But this talk about assumptions reminds me of an old joke.
Three friends are hiking through a forest: an office manager, a truck driver and an economist. They all fall into a deep bear trap. The start pondering, “Now what are we going to do?” The office manager and the truck driver turn to the economist and say, “Hey, your the smart guy here, with all the degrees. How do we get out of here?” And the economist thinks a moment and says, “Well, first, assume a ladder . . .”
In an effort to avoid that you will eventually end up with a grammatically and logically correct statement but a very stilted and dull conversation.
As opposed to illogical, irrational, pedantic, ponderous and overblown as they are now?
It also amazes me that he can find such frequent fault with the statements of others while remaining sublimely confident in his ability to evaluate his own thinking, a particularly hard thing to do without making assumptions.
Easy to do when one bases one's thoughts and arguments upon axioms rather than assumptions and unfounded assertions.
Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term, or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.
That you do not understand or are not carefully reading what I have written is revealed by this statement. I will parse:
Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term . . .
The phrase: knowledge from a realm outside our senses is precisely the type of conjecture that I term Begging the Question. By definition it assumes something that cannot be verified nor proven, therefore is not a true proposition. Period. Same goes for “spirit”. That your suppositions, or presuppositions as boop termed them are entirely illusory is exactly my point. They have no more meaning than 'Leprechauns plant all mushrooms' does.
The second part:
. . . or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.
Which I already stipulated, to quote myself, I love to quote myself:
I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.
which is why I said you either aren't understanding what I said or not carefully reading it.
As to multi-verses, there can be many multi-verses within a universe.
Many ways to refute this, Begs the Question that there are multi-verses (unprovable by definition ) or Assertion Without Proof, but fallacious on the face of it either way.
Again, it is all semantics or labeling.
Or, more accurately, nonsense.
One last thing, the early discussion of the BEFORE as NO THING, meaning eliminating principles and laws along with things, I don't agree with that.
Of course not. This is where logic goes out the window. You make my point beautifully.
The nature of logic is, as you are well aware, highly contested. Logic itself is a closed system -- for its conclusions arise necessarily from its premises -- but becomes doubly closed when one applies it only to the shifting empirical world of secondary causes.
Logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism, is a philosophical attitude which holds, among other things, that metaphysics, more or less, is bunk. Critics of logical positivism have pointed out that since the verifiability principle itself cannot be proved true or false by means of experience, it is therefore meaningless.
"...There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation.
For a metaphysical naif such as Sam Harris, whom we briefly discussed yesterday, there is only empiricism and reason, which is the beginning and end of his startling contribution to philosophy. As if we haven't known for the past couple hundred years that the absurd philosophy of materialism exists. For how absurd is it to employ a faux version of intellection to prove that intellection does not exist?
In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content. Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.
Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism. Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known. It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent. ...
Importantly, because of the nature of UNCONSCIOUS LOGIC ......"
What is it with you guys that when someone rationally challenges your illogically held views you invariably respond with adolescent insults?
Please don't associate the others with me. Those who are familiar with me know that I don't have the educational or intellectual background to even participate in these discussions. However, I am often invited in and I greatly appreciate it because I learn a lot. I am an old guy and a Christian, a belief I came about through much thought, effort and finally the gift of Grace.
A problem I have with the rigidity of your approach to life is its inability (To me at least. Perhaps you can dispel that for me.) to accommodate values and subjective judgements. You can say, "If you do A the likely outcome is B but if you do X the likely outcome will be Y." However, that can't tell you whether B or Y will be good or bad or even satisfying.
How does logic determine the appreciation of music, art, poetry, etc.? Is that something beyond the senses or is simply primal reaction? If primal, what accounts for differences in taste. If something else, what?
Easy to do (evaluate one's own thinking) when one bases one's thoughts and arguments upon axioms rather than assumptions and unfounded assertions.
Do you run a quick pretest before you think or say something? Can you parse your thoughts before you think them? How do you account for engrained knowledge from your early life which may be subjective instead of objective? I think we often make assumptions which we don't recognize as such. I assume (Yes I said It) you think you have overcome that by intuiting the truth of everything. Yet, with your definition of Intuition that can't be the answer either .
The phrase: knowledge from a realm outside our senses is precisely the type of conjecture that I term Begging the Question. By definition it assumes something that cannot be verified nor proven, therefore is not a true proposition.
Whether something is a true proposition is dependent upon knowing the truth. Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. It could easily be a truth we have yet to discover. It may not lead to a logical syllogism but it could be truth nonetheless. Is E+MC2 a valid syllogism? What do our senses say about that?
which is why I said you either aren't understanding what I said or not carefully reading it.
Some of what I said was directed to the thread in general rather than to you specifically. That is true of Intuition, of Multi-verses and of NOTHING. What was directed to you was fairly obvious but not all of it was directed to you.
What is your thought about conjecture? Is it a valid way of thinking or a waste of time? Don't the quantum sciences do a lot of that? Aren't many problems solved that way? To you, how is conjecture different from imagination?
I see strict logic as useful in much of our lives but not in its entirety. To adhere rigidly to formal logic is very sterile and anti-creative.