Our server costs ~$33 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 16th January 2017, 06:38

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
"Claims demand evidence" always true?"


Evidently, yes.
Belief .. is the insistence that the truth is what one would .. wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. 


Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be.  


- Alan Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Actually K, just one more thought. Since it is my view that consciousness corresponds with which neural representations are most active in the network... which could be kind of pictured as consciousness representing the tip of the iceberg, 'presenting' that which bubbles up to the top as it were in an ongoing and constant battle of competition and inhibition dynamics... ie something like survival of the fittest [representation] in the brain... then there is perhaps an idle explanation along similar lines to how I'd explain meditation; in meditation the aim is to calm the mind. So instead of the usual maelstrom of thoughts, ideas, and sensations competing for your attention in consciousness, meditation starves them of attention and thus let's them drift on or die out, leaving a calm mind and thus allowing smaller and more subtle activations to bubble through into conscious awareness. The same principle at work just by going to bed at night... if you're anything like me, as soon as you close your eyes (and thereby shut off most visual sensations) and bed down at night when it's quiet (shutting off most auditory sensations), you find then your mind just fills with ideas. So the timing gap I've been talking about could be explained by just when something breaks through into conscious awareness in these terms... in this case, awareness of an itch.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(Yesterday, 13:00)Emjay Wrote: Though just to say, in my opinion scratching your arse is not comparable to subconscious processes like the heart beating... it involves a choice to do so and/or a trigger to do so. So that doesn't cut it for me personally, but as you said that doesn't matter... they're just different theories.
IDK that it does.  I don't often think about cupping my balls...but my wife says I do it all the time.  I don't even remember having done it.  She says I do it when I'm lost in thought, lol.  Scratching my ass....well, I don't know when the last time I did that was but I'm willing to bet I do it all the time.  Either of these behaviors certainly -can be- conscious acts, but it also seems to be the case that they can be initiated sub or unconsciously and if it;s the case that both propositions (scratching as consciously -and- subconscionsly dircted actions) they aren't a reliable indicator of any disparity of position regardless of theory.  

Quote:Actually,  that said, those processes can come into conscious awareness and be acted upon (more so breathing than the heart rate) so there could be a similarity/connection after all. So scrub what I said.

Hehehe.  I'll get to other other post when the wife and I are done geeking out on the personality test cath put up. Haven't read it yet, so if any of the above seems redundant that;s why.
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Hehe, yeah I'm the same... usually when I'm watching TV. It's just a habitual/subconscious process most of the time.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
@Benny. Okay I'm up to date on the thread and I agree with Rhythm and think that you're equivocating. You seem to be doing exactly what I'm hoping studying philosophy will stop me from doing. Ie if you want to have a meaningful discussion, especially in philosophy and logic where words really matter, you have to be clear on the meaning/definitions of those words, and not using a different meaning than everyone else is... otherwise you'll just talk past each other as you've been doing. This applies both to you using a different definition of truth than Rhythm... his being philosophical/logical truth... and what in the context of this discussion should probably be considered the default definition of truth... it is the philosophy forum after all Wink So arguably the burden should be on you, rather than him to define a different usage of the word if one is being used... and to what you say about truth-in-context; sure there can be different truth values in different contexts but the way around that is simply to define which one you mean when you're talking about it or using it as part of a logical argument... otherwise it is equivocation as I understand the term and can only lead to confusion.

I had exactly the same problem at the beginning of this thread by talking about neural truth rather than philosophical truth... though granted I did say at the very beginning that my first post may or may not be relevant and it was just a thought dump... but later on, when I actually got into discussion with Mud, it became more and more clear that there was conflation/equivocation going on and that we weren't going to get anywhere... and that was my fault. Now I've resumed I don't want to make the same mistakes, hence saying to you that I make no claims (as yet) about how my neural theories relate to truth [in this philosophical context]... so as I see it there's no equivocation as long as I do not make any positive claims about philosophical truth based on it without first defining my use of the term and how it relates to the matter at hand.

I'm not ready to do that because I have yet to confirm to my own satisfaction the link between what we call philosophical truth... ie the truths arrived at by deductive or inductive logic... and neural 'truth' ie activation. I'm sure there is a correspondence but until I can translate this process of 'willful' logic into NN dynamics, such that I understand what's going on neurally at every stage of the reasoning process... only then can I personally consider them equivalent and be able to say to myself (rightly or wrongly... it is a theory after all) this phenomenal reasoning process translates into these neural processes, representations, and/or states.

I think I've made a pretty good start on that with my ABCD post, but whether my theory is good or bad doesn't make any difference whatsoever to you, anyone else, or the logical argument because all we're talking about is philosophical truth; so if I want to engage in that discussion I have to talk in those terms and so the only way neural truth - as I understand it from my theories - can enter the discussion is through equivalence, and if so then just as with phenomena I should be able to use the terms interchangeably, and therefore stick to the philosophical usage. All it would mean was that for me it would have neural 'backup' as it were that could in theory provide insight but whatever insight it did provide would still have to be put into logical/philosophical form before it could be used in an argument, so again, it makes no difference to you whether I'm right or wrong in my theory of mind.

Anyway, onto your other points. I don't really know what to say; we can't know about what exists outside our 'mundane' environment/context (ie the known universe), if anything. At best all it can be is theories but with no way to prove them. We can't know if there are any uber-patterns that explain things in this universe, or even outright contradict what we think we know about things. But I don't think that's cause to give up as it were on the environment we do have access to... it's all we've got regardless of what underlies it, if anything extra. There are still plenty of environment/context dependent truths and patterns to be found. They may not be the uber-truth, but if they're good enough to withstand logical/scientific scrutiny then they're stable enough to be useful. Like your photons... even if there is a larger pattern behind them that we can never know, and even if our scientific theories about them would be contradicted by that, the theories in place still make solid predictions about them and thus in all practical terms it doesn't matter.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(9 hours ago)Emjay Wrote: @Benny. Okay I'm up to date on the thread and I agree with Rhythm and think that you're equivocating.
e tu, Brute? Smile

Quote:I'm not ready to do that because I have yet to confirm to my own satisfaction the link between what we call philosophical truth... ie the truths arrived at by deductive or inductive logic... and neural 'truth' ie activation. I'm sure there is a correspondence but until I can translate this process of 'willful' logic into NN dynamics, such that I understand what's going on neurally at every stage of the reasoning process... only then can I personally consider them equivalent and be able to say to myself (rightly or wrongly... it is a theory after all) this phenomenal reasoning process translates into these neural processes, representations, and/or states.
See, here's the thing that puzzles me about Rhythm, and now you. Truth-in-context is not jealous. A brain is still a brain, a neuron is still a neuron, and so on. In the context of our normal experience of life, and our basic understanding of brain and mind, we are going to agree. So long as that's the context in which we're discussing, there's no problem. It's when people say "Show me the evidence" with regard to metaphysical ideas that things go south-- obviously, metaphysical ideas will be abstractions of what we know-- extensions of as-above-so-below, for example; but you're unlikely to take many instances of as-above-so-below as evidence, any more than I am to take physical evidence as metaphysical evidence. Everyone knows the truth of this-- that we don't know, and that engaging in any kind of discussion about certain subjects means we are speculating just for something to do.

As for equivocation: I think calling the logic in logical positions "evidence" is an equivocation. Evidence means literally "that which is out into view," and taken literally, it would mean providing someone with a direct experience of a thing or its properties. If you want to take it in an abstract sense, then it means something like, "Showing that a new idea is coherent with those ideas which are already held," and perhaps "truth" is defined as "coherence with those ideas which are already held." I don't think those are very good definitions of those words. I really think for something to represent "truth," it must conform to an absolute objective source-- and the only way to establish this kind of truth is to establish a context in which subjectives are taken as objectives-- since there is nothing that we can interact with on a non-subjective level.

Quote:Anyway, onto your other points. I don't really know what to say; we can't know about what exists outside our 'mundane' environment/context (ie the known universe), if anything. At best all it can be is theories but with no way to prove them.
That's what metaphysics is. But some answers are still better than others, in my opinion. We can at least try to inject contexts. For example, I'd say that as we examine our universe at more and more primitive levels, things get more and more insubstantial, ambiguous, and downright squirrely. We know that QM involves definite observer effects, and that this is built-in to our universe. I'd therefore say it's reasonable to believe that if anything lies UNDER QM, i.e. QM supervenes on something, that something must be so incredibly ineffable and incomprehensible that it has to be expressed as a philosophical principle or quality.

Can I prove this? No, of course not. But given what we know in THIS context, I think it's a fair attempt to inject into that more basic context. Saying, "Show me" defeats the joy of this kind of philosophy-- playing with the known and speculating on the different ways it might interact with the unknown. Appeals to evidence in this case would be pointless and maybe a little rude.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Things only go south when people ask for the evidence....if you don't have any.  

Angel

If a person finds themselves making excuses for their claims inability to pass a fundamental hurdle of logical assessment, their claims lack of parity with competing claims...who's problem is that? Defeating the joy, what does joy have to do with truth? Rude......it's rude to interrupt fantasy-called-philosophy?
 “I can’t even go to a goddamn potluck without having to thank some space fairy for the broccoli casserole!” -Trae Crowder


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 7979 14th December 2016, 14:53
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities? joseph_ 150 4034 3rd September 2016, 11:26
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Afterlife, I'd be happy if it were true..... maestroanth 35 1650 12th June 2016, 03:13
Last Post: Little lunch
  The nature of evidence Wryetui 150 4975 6th May 2016, 06:21
Last Post: ignoramus
  Witness Evidence RoadRunner79 248 16047 17th December 2015, 19:23
Last Post: bennyboy
  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence RoadRunner79 184 10976 13th November 2015, 12:17
Last Post: Khemikal
  Does a "True Self" Exist? Salacious B. Crumb 68 6951 17th July 2015, 06:11
Last Post: chasbanner
  Miracles are useless as evidence Pizza 0 539 15th March 2015, 19:37
Last Post: Pizza
  On the nature of evidence. trmof 125 10270 26th October 2014, 17:14
Last Post: Pandæmonium
  popular opinion as evidence Coffee Jesus 38 3231 14th April 2014, 09:12
Last Post: Coffee Jesus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)