I see

Well, the thing about personal experience is that it's unreliable. So we may feel certain that we have experienced something, but that doesn't mean we actually have. I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at.

Nevertheless, it is the only "first hand" information we have. Although it's still not really first hand, as it's gone through at least one filter before we can analyse it.

It's a very interesting topic!

Oh... you two are a pair. 

(October 2, 2015 at 7:37 am)robvalue Wrote: I see

Well, the thing about personal experience is that it's unreliable. So we may feel certain that we have experienced something, but that doesn't mean we actually have. I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at.

Nevertheless, it is the only "first hand" information we have. Although it's still not really first hand, as it's gone through at least one filter before we can analyse it.

It's a very interesting topic!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see the topic: 

There is an engineer, who is studying horse identification by machines at varying lengths. They want to see if they can figure out a way for machines to discern horses from a distance that doesn't rely on zooming (okay maybe this isn't the best example, but I'll run with it), they conclude, that movement of isolated areas, shape, and idiosyncratic behaviours in horses that are not observed in other quadrupeds are ideal for their machinery to discern horses from other animals.

Later, a scientist wants to conduct a running hypothesis on machine learning, and repeat the experiment with a higher level of control, so they go to the ranch where the experiment was conducted. 

It turns out, there was a secret experiment going on behind the engineer's back, and that was an experiment to see at what distance humans are deceived in to thinking mechanical horses are real horses. 

The engineers come back after the scientist had notified them of the error (and potential ethics violation), and realize that they had been duped. So, later, after reaching consensus with the scientists, they go on and repeat the experiment on real horses. 


The experience by the engineers, was definitely a real experience, but it was of a false nature (the machine being a horse). 
The experience of the inquiring scientist was a more accurate experience, as he had access to more information than the engineer.
The engineer's experience is a certain one, one that was as real as the scientist's experience.
I would liken the engineers experience as to the first kind of knowledge. The certain, but potentially useless information. 
Whereas the consensus reached by the scientists and the engineer would be likened to the second kind of knowledge, or, external knowledge derived by consensus. 

What concerns me ultimately, is that the scientists may be duped themselves. Furthermore, how can the scientists know that they aren't like the engineer, and how can they trust their own senses as accurate when obtaining information about "reality", and come to draw accurate conclusions.

 I guess that's where I'm going with all of it.

I see possible points of crossover on in the spectral range that includes panpsychism to panentheism. I would add that various degrees of neoplatonism and Kantian notions also bridge that gap.

That said I have found that although the AF party line is that atheism is only the lack of belief the dominant philosophy is materialistic.

(October 2, 2015 at 8:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I see possible points of crossover on in the spectral range that includes panpsychism to panentheism. I would add that various degrees of neoplatonism and Kantian notions also bridge that gap.

That said I have found that although the AF party line is that atheism is only the lack of belief the dominant philosophy is materialistic.

Holy shit, I just witnessed a secular miracle. Chad actually defined us correctly!

Sure, there's an undertone of derision in there, but it's correct and accurate. 

*swoons*

Psycho: That's a weird scenario! I kind of see what you're saying, I think. Indeed, the more information you have, the more accurate conclusions you can draw.

If I'm reading right, the engineer drew the correct conclusion based in the assumption that they were real horses. So his methodology was correct, and his results solid, but one of his assumptions was false. So he was getting information about something other than what he thought. If another engineer was there and actually checked these horses and found they weren't real, or even if the first guy did that, they could have found that out. So I suppose you could say they should have done that rather than take someone else's word for it.

But sure, ultimately we can never know we're not being duped. Like I said, I'm not certain anything that appears to be happening is really happening. I'm not certain I'm awake. It's just not possible. So that's why we try and make as few assumptions as possible, and just build conclusions from them. In this case, the engineer assumed something that could have been verified, and it cost him. We could let him off as he'd been coerced into ignoring it.

It's an impossible problem. It brings up solipsism, and problem of other minds, and simply being deluded by some other force. It's impossible to count them out. All we can do is make basic assumptions and do what works. There isn't any alternative except total inaction.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I've heard quite commonly, that if you're not a theist, you're an atheist, and vice versa.

That is really a question of definition.  If "atheist" is defined as "not a theist," then it covers absolutely everything that isn't a theist.  If it is defined differently (and there is another common definition), then there may be middle ground.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I've also been told there is no in between, as you either believe something, or you don't, but is that necessarily so?

Yes, you either have a belief or you do not have it.  You might be confused by the fact that humans sometimes have contradictory beliefs, which may make it seem like there is some middle ground when there isn't.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I'm not speaking of agnosticism (defined by one's ability to know whether god exists, which is a different question). 

What if I'm not certain that I believe in one or the other?

One can be uncertain whether one believes something or not.  That does not alter the fact that one either believes it or one does not.

So, one may not know whether one is a theist or an atheist.  But not knowing something does not mean that there is no truth about that something.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I mean, I'm only certain of the experiences that I have. Beyond that, I have no certainty.

Is it because "belief" is an experience, and "lack of belief" another experience, that people say these things?

I would not call belief an experience.  I tend to think of it more as a state of being.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I don't exactly know why there is no middle position, when my experience would accurately be described as "uncertain of belief".
I at times feel as though I am an atheist, and at one point in my life I was a theist, but now, I am completely uncertain of my beliefs.
I don't know if my belief reflects that of theism or atheism, because I don't know if I have enough information to believe in anything, despite this, I manage to maintain some beliefs, such as: 

The belief in an outside world, the belief in other minds, and the belief in a stable, quantifiable universe. 

I'm sorry if this was winding and confusing, but this is the state of affairs in my brain. 
I'm also sorry if this has been asked before, and I've accidentally overlooked it.

What are your thoughts on this?

Okay, so you do not know whether you are an atheist or a theist.  That does not contradict the idea that you must be one or the other.  Right now, I either have some undetected form of cancer, or I do not.  I do not know which applies to me.  But one of them certainly does.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I've heard quite commonly, that if you're not a theist, you're an atheist, and vice versa. I've also been told there is no in between, as you either believe something, or you don't, but is that necessarily so? I'm not speaking of agnosticism (defined by one's ability to know whether god exists, which is a different question). 

What if I'm not certain that I believe in one or the other? I mean, I'm only certain of the experiences that I have. Beyond that, I have no certainty.

Is it because "belief" is an experience, and "lack of belief" another experience, that people say these things?
I don't exactly know why there is no middle position, when my experience would accurately be described as "uncertain of belief".
I at times feel as though I am an atheist, and at one point in my life I was a theist, but now, I am completely uncertain of my beliefs.
I don't know if my belief reflects that of theism or atheism, because I don't know if I have enough information to believe in anything, despite this, I manage to maintain some beliefs, such as: 

The belief in an outside world, the belief in other minds, and the belief in a stable, quantifiable universe. 

I'm sorry if this was winding and confusing, but this is the state of affairs in my brain. 
I'm also sorry if this has been asked before, and I've accidentally overlooked it.

What are your thoughts on this?

Maybe your one of those awesome ordinary "Who cares?" kinda people who just eats sandwiches while everyone in the room is yelling and shitting at each other.

(October 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I've heard quite commonly, that if you're not a theist, you're an atheist, and vice versa.

That is really a question of definition.  If "atheist" is defined as "not a theist," then it covers absolutely everything that isn't a theist.  If it is defined differently (and there is another common definition), then there may be middle ground.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I've also been told there is no in between, as you either believe something, or you don't, but is that necessarily so?

Yes, you either have a belief or you do not have it.  You might be confused by the fact that humans sometimes have contradictory beliefs, which may make it seem like there is some middle ground when there isn't.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I'm not speaking of agnosticism (defined by one's ability to know whether god exists, which is a different question). 

What if I'm not certain that I believe in one or the other?

One can be uncertain whether one believes something or not.  That does not alter the fact that one either believes it or one does not.

So, one may not know whether one is a theist or an atheist.  But not knowing something does not mean that there is no truth about that something.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I mean, I'm only certain of the experiences that I have. Beyond that, I have no certainty.

Is it because "belief" is an experience, and "lack of belief" another experience, that people say these things?

I would not call belief an experience.  I tend to think of it more as a state of being.

(October 2, 2015 at 4:35 am)Psychonaut Wrote: I don't exactly know why there is no middle position, when my experience would accurately be described as "uncertain of belief".
I at times feel as though I am an atheist, and at one point in my life I was a theist, but now, I am completely uncertain of my beliefs.
I don't know if my belief reflects that of theism or atheism, because I don't know if I have enough information to believe in anything, despite this, I manage to maintain some beliefs, such as: 

The belief in an outside world, the belief in other minds, and the belief in a stable, quantifiable universe. 

I'm sorry if this was winding and confusing, but this is the state of affairs in my brain. 
I'm also sorry if this has been asked before, and I've accidentally overlooked it.

What are your thoughts on this?

Okay, so you do not know whether you are an atheist or a theist.  That does not contradict the idea that you must be one or the other.  Right now, I either have some undetected form of cancer, or I do not.  I do not know which applies to me.  But one of them certainly does.

Are you saying that a person can be uncertain consciously, and certain subconsciously? Simultaneously?

Also, how do you know that there is no middle ground?

(October 2, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Psychonaut Wrote:

---

(October 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is really a question of definition.  If "atheist" is defined as "not a theist," then it covers absolutely everything that isn't a theist.  If it is defined differently (and there is another common definition), then there may be middle ground.




Yes, you either have a belief or you do not have it.  You might be confused by the fact that humans sometimes have contradictory beliefs, which may make it seem like there is some middle ground when there isn't.




One can be uncertain whether one believes something or not.  That does not alter the fact that one either believes it or one does not.

So, one may not know whether one is a theist or an atheist.  But not knowing something does not mean that there is no truth about that something.




I would not call belief an experience.  I tend to think of it more as a state of being.




Okay, so you do not know whether you are an atheist or a theist.  That does not contradict the idea that you must be one or the other.  Right now, I either have some undetected form of cancer, or I do not.  I do not know which applies to me.  But one of them certainly does.

---

Are you saying that a person can be uncertain consciously, and certain subconsciously?

No.  I am not saying that one is certain of anything.  I am saying that one is or is not a theist.  Just like I either have cancer or I do not have cancer.  What anyone knows about either is irrelevant to those facts.

(October 2, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Psychonaut Wrote: Simultaneously?

Also, how do you know that there is no middle ground?

Because I understand the concept of negation, which is the common use of the word "not" in English.  To say:


means anything other than X.  There is no "middle ground," because "Not X" is anything that isn't X.

Thus, I can be absolutely certain of the following sentence:


There is no middle ground because "not a theist" covers absolutely everything other than being a theist.