(October 7, 2013 at 2:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: People have argued against "You don't know what you don't know." They say, "I don't know Madonna's phone number" or whatever. But they're missing the point-- there may be crucially important data in the universe which for some system reason we cannot perceive, or even conceive of. Personally, I'd argue this is a near-certainty.
Would you now? And where is the evidence for this near-certainty?
Your argument starts off simply enough - being based on facts - and goes on to extrapolate it to ridiculous levels.
"1. There are types of information in the universe that we do not perceive - this is true.
2. If we do not perceive it, it's possible that we cannot perceive it.
3. If we cannot perceive it, it's possible that we do not conceive of it.
4. If we do not conceive of it, it's possible that we cannot conceive of it.
Therefore, I'm near-certain that there is information in the universe that we cannot conceive of."
The problem here is how you equivocate between hypothetical possibility and near-certainty.
First of all, as we've shown, the limits of biological perception do not limit human perceptual capacities - therefore, saying that something that we do not perceive cannot be perceived is simply wrong. Secondly, as we've shown through imagination - we can conceive of things beyond actual perception. Thirdly, different types of information are related to each-other - so, the type of information that we cannot perceive would likely be associated with one that we do and thus conceiving and then perceiving its existence is not an impossibility.
Finally, you seem to have lost the perspective within this thread. The central issue here is if the fact that our rational processes evolved in any way compromises their ability to determine the truth. You seem to be arguing that, in fact, it is impossible for our perceptual and conceptual faculties to determine the whole truth, which means - what, exactly? That they are inherently compromised for determining any truth?
