(October 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: why? why do you think any of our reasoning skills are tailored for discerning truth instead of being adjusted to benefit our survival skills? and even if some of them are adjusted for indicating truth, how can you say all of them are?

He knows because he used his reasoning skills.

(October 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: that doesn't logically follow. even if you were correct that a 'certain amount of truth is' that doesn't mean any of our reasoning skills aren't compromised, yet alone all of them as you claim.

Actually, it does. Given that certain amount of truth is necessary for survival and any compromise of all of our reasoning skills would compromise our ability to discern that truth, then it means our survival would be compromised. It isn't, so they aren't.

(October 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: why? why do you think any of our reasoning skills are tailored for discerning truth instead of being adjusted to benefit our survival skills? and even if some of them are adjusted for indicating truth, how can you say all of them are?

Because discerning truth is a survival skill.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:03 am)genkaus Wrote: Actually, it does. Given that certain amount of truth is necessary for survival and any compromise of all of our reasoning skills would compromise our ability to discern that truth, then it means our survival would be compromised. It isn't, so they aren't.

I commend you for thinking outside the box, but there's an important detail you're missing. you don't need all your reasoning skills to discern some truth. so it is possible for us to know necessary truths in order to survive without having completely accurate reasoning skills. also, you still have to show why it is in fact necessary to know *some* truths. I can understand if you're saying we have to observe what resembles truth, but that can mean most if not all observations are exaggerated to give us paranoia to better react. and our reasoning skills could be attuned to make us rationalize this paranoia as actual truth so we trust our senses.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:19 am)Rational AKD Wrote: I commend you for thinking outside the box, but there's an important detail you're missing. you don't need all your reasoning skills to discern some truth. so it is possible for us to know necessary truths in order to survive without having completely accurate reasoning skills.

Read it again. I never said you needed *all* your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth - but you do need *some* of your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth and you do need those to be accurate - otherwise, your survival will be compromised. Thus, given reasonable confidence in those *some* reasoning skills, you can use them to evaluate the rest which may or may not be compromised. However, if *all* your reasoning skills are compromised, then your survival is in jeopardy - which, according to you, is contrary to naturalistic premises.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:19 am)Rational AKD Wrote: also, you still have to show why it is in fact necessary to know *some* truths. I can understand if you're saying we have to observe what resembles truth, but that can mean most if not all observations are exaggerated to give us paranoia to better react. and our reasoning skills could be attuned to make us rationalize this paranoia as actual truth so we trust our senses.

You don't observe "something resembling truth" - you observe reality. That's tautologically true. A compromised reasoning skill set would build an inaccurate model of that reality and the more inaccurate it is, the lesser the survivability. Paranoia does not improve your chances of survival - just ask the guy who thought that food was a predator.

(October 6, 2013 at 1:56 am)genkaus Wrote: Read it again. I never said you needed *all* your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth - but you do need *some* of your reasoning skills to discern *some* truth and you do need those to be accurate - otherwise, your survival will be compromised. Thus, given reasonable confidence in those *some* reasoning skills, you can use them to evaluate the rest which may or may not be compromised. However, if *all* your reasoning skills are compromised, then your survival is in jeopardy - which, according to you, is contrary to naturalistic premises.

it's possible to have false beliefs mixed with true beliefs that are all consistent. likewise, it is possible to have inaccurate reasoning with some accurate reasoning without conflict. if that is the case, there would be no way to discern which are accurate and which are not.

Quote:You don't observe "something resembling truth" - you observe reality.

no, we observe our perception of reality. our perception of reality isn't necessarily real as hallucinations prove. another example, it is said we have a blind spot but to be more accurate the brain fills the blind spot with the space around it. this makes it so we don't see what's really there, the black spot of where our vision is obscured. fortunately we are able to detect this blind spots with certain tests, but the point is the brain is capable of having senses that are not indicators of truth. if that is the case, it's possible there are some we can't possibly detect. this puts all our senses into question.

Quote: Paranoia does not improve your chances of survival

actually, yet it does. as they say, it's better to overreact than not react enough. if fire can kill you, it's better to perceive it as an exaggerated threat than what it actually is, because you have a greater chance of being more alert and getting away from it.

(October 6, 2013 at 2:31 am)Rational AKD Wrote: it's possible to have false beliefs mixed with true beliefs that are all consistent. likewise, it is possible to have inaccurate reasoning with some accurate reasoning without conflict. if that is the case, there would be no way to discern which are accurate and which are not.

I disagree. Mixing false beliefs with true ones ans simultaneously having accurate and inaccurate reasoning would lead to conflict, contradiction and inconsistency. It is, in fact, one of the checks indicating that either your premises or your reasoning are at fault. The fact that you can ignore such a contradiction does not render it non-existent.

(October 6, 2013 at 2:31 am)Rational AKD Wrote: no, we observe our perception of reality. our perception of reality isn't necessarily real as hallucinations prove. another example, it is said we have a blind spot but to be more accurate the brain fills the blind spot with the space around it. this makes it so we don't see what's really there, the black spot of where our vision is obscured. fortunately we are able to detect this blind spots with certain tests, but the point is the brain is capable of having senses that are not indicators of truth. if that is the case, it's possible there are some we can't possibly detect. this puts all our senses into question.

No, it doesn't. The very idea that there is an error in the interpretation of sensory data means the rest of the interpretation is accurate.

(October 6, 2013 at 2:31 am)Rational AKD Wrote: actually, yet it does. as they say, it's better to overreact than not react enough. if fire can kill you, it's better to perceive it as an exaggerated threat than what it actually is, because you have a greater chance of being more alert and getting away from it.

Don't confuse caution with paranoia. If humanity as a whole had been paranoid of fire, then we'd never have considered putting it to use and thus using it to improve survivability. That we did means we weren't paranoid and thus improved our chances. Those who were paranoid and got away were eaten by animals in the dark.

What is truth?

And what is natural?

And just WTF is "spiritual"?

(October 6, 2013 at 4:10 am)max-greece Wrote: What is truth?

What is "is"?