Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

Yes, I too agree that we can give defiitions to imagenary abstract (As wel as imagenary AND abstract) things.

Thank you, we agree on that.

That said, our imagenary ideas can't push back 'Directly' into reality. 

We can't transplant Unicorns directly from our thoughts into reality. 

Granted. Just because we imagine something doesn't mean it can be real, or that we make it real.

But you're right to emphasize "directly." Obviously, if we want to make anything new first we have to imagine it. But then we have to do some sort of physical action to bring it about. Mental activity alone isn't enough.

There is a sense in which imagination might realize something, though this is a bit different from what we've been talking about. If we think about the phenomenological way in which we perceive the world, our perception of the world around us is never passive. We don't just "take it in." There is active engagement with our surroundings and we use imagination as I mentioned in my last post. So let's say we imagine something that's new for us -- maybe a quality like cuteness (in the Japanese sense). This is different from beauty or other kinds of attractiveness that we've thought of before. From the point when we first imagine that quality it will be present for us in our perceptions of the world, when previously it wasn't. 

So the new imagination remakes the world for us, very slightly. The world gains something new, for us. 

I guess most people wouldn't say we've created something real -- I suppose they'd define real as tangible. But in terms of my life-world, the phenomenological world I actually live in, something new is there. 

On an aside, I would point out two reasonably well known artists. 

H.R. Geiger and M.C. Escher.

The maths behind Escher's cretions is rather profound yet the images 'Came' to him with no education of maths. 

Geiger's creations are also intrinsically 'Unique'.

I would haverd to make the point that the subtle differences in how Human brains 'Wire' themselve during development effect how such creative processes 'Work'.

This is a fascinating question. Character is destiny, and the inexplicable way in which one artist shows up with a unique vision is a kind of gift of nature. 

It relates to what I was rambling about just before -- when a creative genius makes something new in the world, that possibility of vision is added to our total capability. People who know more art see more in the world. Monet-vision is a gift to us all. 

Prior to Kant, most people thought an artist's job was to record the world accurately. It might be either idealized or "realistic," but the beauty of the painting was supposed to be a record of the beauty of the world. When Kant told us that the mind creates the beauty of the world -- that beauty isn't a quality that's "out there" -- art changed. After that, what we admire in an artist's work is not the beauty of the thing seen but the beauty of the mind of the person seeing. Van Gogh tested it by painting old boots, and making a beautiful picture, because it was his unique mind which created the beauty. 

Sorry for the obtuse possibly ramble.  

It's been a stressful day at work and am venting ideas possibly as a way of decompressing the stress.

Not at all. It's my pleasure. I'm pleased that you're interested. 

And I know what you mean about decompressing. I find this sort of stuff nicely distracting.

[Objectivist]

They define the concept "tree" and "rock" not each and every tree and rock.  Again, the role of a concept in cognition is to condense a huge number of units into one.  A unit is one of a group of similar things.  similar things vary only in their specific measurements.  The concept tree subsumes all trees that exist now, have existed, or will ever exist. We don't define each individual tree just as we don't define every unit of the concept "man".  We don't have a definition of Sally or Rob or John because these are not abstractions.  concretes have descriptions, abstractions have definitions.  If we defined every concrete we come upon that would defeat the purpose of definitions, which is the final step in concept formation.  Think of a concept as a file folder, a word as the label on the file folder and a definition as a shorthand description of what's in the folder, enough to let you know what's in there and to differentiate the contents of one folder from another.  Unit economy is the name of the game in cognition.

Right. We form concepts based on our experience. We have direct experience of a number of different things, and abstract these into an abstract concept in the mind. 

As the man said in the 13th century: there is nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses. (I'm not completely sure this is true, but we can go with it for now.) And as the same guy was careful to point out, the kind of thing we can sense depends on the kind of bodies we have, and the kind of animals we are. We obviously can't sense some things that other animals can sense, and there's no way we can even comment on what aliens might sense.

 Yes, exactly right.  We form concepts based on perceptions and because the senses work in a causal fashion, the form in which we perceive is dictated by the nature of our senses, their identity.  Yes, other types of organisms sense things based on the nature of their senses.  insects sense ultraviolet light.  Bat's "see" in the dark by means of sonar.  The form in which we perceive things is different but the objects that we sense are the same. 
 

So concepts are abstractions derived from concrete examples.

 Exactly.  And what is an abstraction?  It is the result of a process of measurement omission.  This is crucial to understanding concepts and it's one of Ayn Rand's great achievments in philosophy.  

And since we can't sense many things, it's almost certain that there are things in the universe we can't conceive of. The apophatic theologians are at pains to remind us that, in their opinion, some things about God are this way. Can't be sensed, and can't be conceived of.

But by what means are they aware of this god?  That's the crucial question?  The notion that there are some things about God that can not be sensed, implies that there are some that can.  By what means?

Therefore, in their view, although natural theology demonstrates the existence of God, there is still much about him that can't be conceived of by people. But the fact that we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's not there.

But it doesn't.  You can't infer a god's existence by looking at nature.  The concept of inference rests on the primacy of existence principle.  The notion of gods assumes the primacy of consciousness principle.  Therefore any attempt to infer gods existence is not only invalid but unsound since the claim that a god exists is self-contradictory.  Inference from nature can only get you to something that is natural.  That's my view anyway. 

In addition, human beings have the ability to form new concepts by recombining elements of previous concepts. You can conceive of an imaginary animal, for example, though you've never seen it, by combining portions of different animals. I have experienced things that were unique, or at least seemed so to me, so I have a concept of uniqueness, and now I can imagine things that don't really exist that are unique -- that is, not members of existing groups.

Here is where I think you go off of the rails.  I see the disconnect between us.  you are using the term conceive here in a much more colloquial way than I am.  I am using the term in a very precise and technical meaning since this is a philosophical discussion. We don't form new concepts by taking parts of other concepts and recombining them.  That's not the way that concepts work.  We don't take parts of other concepts and rearrange them.  We form new concepts by integrating other concepts as wholes into higher-level abstractions.  What you are describing here is imagination which works completely differently.  Concepts are mental integrations of two or more similar things that we perceive organized by isolation of essential characteristics with their specific measurements omitted or abstracted away and united under a single definition.  Imagination is the rearrangement of perceptions into new combinations that don't exist in nature.  It is not a process of abstraction.  Imagination is the creation of an object, albeit a mental object whereas conception is a process of identifying an object.  Imagination is subjective and concepts are objective, at least valid ones are.  If you use the term "conceive" as a package deal the way you are doing it can only lead one to confusion.  This can be avoided by consciously integrating our thinking with the primacy of existence.  Failure to adhere to this principle will only result in the blurring of the lines between the real and the imaginary.  

Well, that's all I have time for now.  I have to go chase after those little green tickets.

[LadyForCamus]

Called it long ago and was shot down for being judgmental of a new member. Now we all know.

That's honestly laughable, considering how rude I've seen some longtime members here be toward new members who were maybe a bit eccentric, but not in the least bit mean-spirited. I remember one new member sending me private messages and he/she seemed to be legitimately distressed about the harshly cold welcome he got from people here on the board. I think, as smart as the community is here (most folks on AF are much smarter than myself, and that is part of what keeps me coming here), people fall victim to their own biases just like any other group of individuals... No one is above human nature - I've seen people here fall victim to that nature many a time, smart as they may be outside of those instances.

However... Thanks for chiming in though, Abaddon. I will continue to call Bel out where I see fit... but it's often an effort in futility, because he will just ignore you when you criticize him, and continue to interact with the people who tend to put up with his slippery ways.

No, it’s because he’s mature enough to ignore the insult-slinging peanut gallery, and stay focused on the actual substantive discussions being had. You guys are just butt-hurt because you can’t get a reaction out of him, lol.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, it’s because he’s mature enough to ignore the insult-slinging peanut gallery,

Actually the reason he's not responding is he knows it's all true, And knows if he piped in we would be able to show clear examples of what were talking about.Nothing mature about that.

 and stay focused on the actual substantive discussions being had.

His duplicity isn't part of he discussion or of substance? .That's an interesting take.

 You guys are just butt-hurt because you can’t get a reaction out of him, lol

No we fully expect he won't rise .We expect him to sink .Sink as to not expose himself.

[Abaddon_ire]

That's honestly laughable, considering how rude I've seen some longtime members here be toward new members who were maybe a bit eccentric, but not in the least bit mean-spirited. I remember one new member sending me private messages and he/she seemed to be legitimately distressed about the harshly cold welcome he got from people here on the board. I think, as smart as the community is here (most folks on AF are much smarter than myself, and that is part of what keeps me coming here), people fall victim to their own biases just like any other group of individuals... No one is above human nature - I've seen people here fall victim to that nature many a time, smart as they may be outside of those instances.

However... Thanks for chiming in though, Abaddon. I will continue to call Bel out where I see fit... but it's often an effort in futility, because he will just ignore you when you criticize him, and continue to interact with the people who tend to put up with his slippery ways.

No, it’s because he’s mature enough to ignore the insult-slinging peanut gallery, and stay focused on the actual substantive discussions being had. You guys are just butt-hurt because you can’t get a reaction out of him, lol.

Ask him what he really believes about god. See if you get an answer. Nobody else can.

[vulcanlogician]

Probably already been said in the thread, but agnosticism is quite an honest position... because it takes into account the limitations of one's knowledge (unlike theist/atheist positions which tend to take assumptions to count as knowledge). Sure, assumptions can be rather plausible (like atheism is), but under no circumstances should any -even the most plausible- assumption be confused with genuine knowledge. Agnostics don't occupy a middle ground between atheism and theism. They simply say that neither position can be confirmed or denied. Sounds pretty honest to me.

[LadyForCamus]

No, it’s because he’s mature enough to ignore the insult-slinging peanut gallery, and stay focused on the actual substantive discussions being had. You guys are just butt-hurt because you can’t get a reaction out of him, lol.

Ask him what he really believes about god. See if you get an answer. Nobody else can.

We constantly harp on theists here for being so afraid to say, “I don’t know” about questions related to reality, that they just accept, with absolute certainty, some other answer that can’t be demonstrated. Meanwhile, Bel is here basically saying, “I’m not sure what I believe yet; I don’t know yet; I’m still reading and learning”, and you guys can’t wait to jump all over him, and call him a liar. That’s simply unfair. Not every atheist has to be a gnostic atheist just because you are. No one is intellectually obligated to hurry up and get to where you are on the spectrum of belief. Different people can be in different places on the same path, you know. I was an agnostic theist for three times as many years as I have been a strong atheist. Bel is clearly a voracious reader, and has a particular interest in several areas of philosophy related to the nature of our realty and of being. That doesn’t make someone a closet theist. I’m interested in those things too. Maybe you guys are the ones who are uncomfortable with the answer “I don’t know” when it comes to people who are still figuring out what their beliefs are.

[Abaddon_ire]

Ask him what he really believes about god. See if you get an answer. Nobody else can.

We constantly harp on theists here for being so afraid to say, “I don’t know” about questions related to reality, that they just accept, with absolute certainty, some other answer that can’t be demonstrated. Meanwhile, Bel is here basically saying, “I’m not sure what I believe yet; I don’t know yet; I’m still reading and learning”, and you guys can’t wait to jump all over him, and call him a liar. That’s simply unfair. Not every atheist has to be a gnostic atheist just because you are. No one is intellectually obligated to hurry up and get to where you are on the spectrum of belief. Different people can be in different places on the same path, you know. I was an agnostic theist for three times as many years as I have been a strong atheist. Bel is clearly a voracious reader, and has a particular interest in several areas of philosophy related to the nature of our realty and of being. That doesn’t make someone a closet theist. I’m interested in those things too. Maybe you guys are the ones who are uncomfortable with the answer “I don’t know” when it comes to people who are still figuring out what their beliefs are.

Correct. And If you asked him, he would give that answer. He believes in no god/s, he is unsure/on the fence, or he believes in some god. 

Now ask him. Pin him down for a solid answer. No judgment from here about whatever answer that might be. But plenty of judgment for evading the question.

In any event, you waste time asking me. Ask him. I am not in his head.

[Simon Moon]

We constantly harp on theists here for being so afraid to say, “I don’t know” about questions related to reality, that they just accept, with absolute certainty, some other answer that can’t be demonstrated. Meanwhile, Bel is here basically saying, “I’m not sure what I believe yet; I don’t know yet; I’m still reading and learning”, and you guys can’t wait to jump all over him, and call him a liar. That’s simply unfair. Not every atheist has to be a gnostic atheist just because you are. No one is intellectually obligated to hurry up and get to where you are on the spectrum of belief. Different people can be in different places on the same path, you know. I was an agnostic theist for three times as many years as I have been a strong atheist. Bel is clearly a voracious reader, and has a particular interest in several areas of philosophy related to the nature of our realty and of being. That doesn’t make someone a closet theist. I’m interested in those things too. Maybe you guys are the ones who are uncomfortable with the answer “I don’t know” when it comes to people who are still figuring out what their beliefs are.

Correct. And If you asked him, he would give that answer. He believes in no god/s, he is unsure/on the fence, or he believes in some god. 

Now ask him. Pin him down for a solid answer. No judgment from here about whatever answer that might be. But plenty of judgment for evading the question.

In any event, you waste time asking me. Ask him. I am not in his head.

Yeah...

While I have had interesting and fun interactions with Bel, he is the king of obfuscation with regards some questions.

[The Architect Of Fate]

We constantly harp on theists here for being so afraid to say, “I don’t know” about questions related to reality, that they just accept, with absolute certainty, some other answer that can’t be demonstrated. Meanwhile, Bel is here basically saying, “I’m not sure what I believe yet; I don’t know yet; I’m still reading and learning”, and you guys can’t wait to jump all over him, and call him a liar. That’s simply unfair. Not every atheist has to be a gnostic atheist just because you are. No one is intellectually obligated to hurry up and get to where you are on the spectrum of belief. Different people can be in different places on the same path, you know. I was an agnostic theist for three times as many years as I have been a strong atheist. Bel is clearly a voracious reader, and has a particular interest in several areas of philosophy related to the nature of our realty and of being. That doesn’t make someone a closet theist. I’m interested in those things too. Maybe you guys are the ones who are uncomfortable with the answer “I don’t know” when it comes to people who are still figuring out what their beliefs are.

I'm sorry this is off .He constantly engages in obfuscation and double speak .