Meditations

[Anteroinen]

So it is a God of the Gaps then?

Sorry I didn't answer that earlier. No, not at all. God of the gaps is a terrible argument in any situation. Your basically saying "here is a gap in our knowledge, and THAT IS EVIDENCE OF GOD AT WORK! HAHAHAHA!" And then you are in the position of back peddling every time a new discovery is made. No, I look at it more as God is the ultimate end of all knowledge.

Haha, I've once phrased that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but non-existence of evidence is piss poor evidence for existence". If you say you take away aspects of God if they are irrational, how will you know when to stop?

So basically you should be skeptical about everything until the proof is substantial enough for you

But depending how you mean this, I would have to disagree. There are things we simply can't prove substantially. I can't scientifically prove my wife loves me. I can't even prove she is not what is called a philosophical zombie, someone who acts as if they are aware and thinking, but are actually an unaware mechanism running off of programing. These are things we can't substantially prove. We just have to "trust" that our senses, and our experiences of similar things, are accurate.

By substantial enough for you I did not mean scientific. To me my hypothetical wife's actions would be enough of a proof for me live with and rely on because that is very compelling. On the other hand I could also point out you could test that with lie detectors and tests of certain hormone levels connected with being in love. I've read that love is chemically identical to eating six kilos of chocolate, although that is probably just an oversimplification.

That is kind of why I said that it seems to be enough for you. If you really experience God, then that is evidence for you.

As for the philosophical zombie thing... would it matter if she were? If you have someone to love and that someone's reaction is indiscernible from someone who loves you back, what's the harm? Would you tell as children they can't love their teddy bear? I don't know if that is a very good parable but nothing else pops to mind.

Refusing to be skeptical about anything is quite antithetical to that notion.

I refuse to be skeptical that you are a human. I refuse to be skeptical that I am a person sitting on a couch typing on a laptop. In other words, though I can't absolutely prove it, I do not believe I am a brain hooked to a computer simulation. I will consider the possibility I suppose, but I won't take it seriously unless I started seeing the world behave as if it was a computer simulation. This is what I mean by blind skepticism, being skeptical without reason.

That just means you have sufficient evidence for yourself to believe those things. You already were skeptical, you have been satisfied. There is sufficient evidence for me being a human for instance: I answer in a manner that is not irrational or erratic; I am not like Cleverbot. I have no qualms with that, because I have identical beliefs. EDIT: I might add that you could also prove it via photographs, even meeting me, were you inclined to do so.

On the brain in a computer thing I repeat a reaction similar to the wife example: Even if this were a game: these are the rules, these are the characters. We'd have to deal with it anyhow, so why care about the medium? It is real for us, or maybe just me if it is a simulation, but it still is real. I actually heard that some people have looked for physical laws that look arbitrary, i.e. they have no reason to be there so they might be like world limits in a game, and found some. I should probably read up on that before I talk any further though.

When you say, "I do not believe I am a brain hooked up to a computer simulation", do you mean "I believe that I am not a brain hooked up to a computer simulation"?

There isn't any difference between those unless one is aiming for the burden of proof stance.

[Vortex]

By substantial enough for you I did not mean scientific. To me my hypothetical wife's actions would be enough of a proof for me live with and rely on because that is very compelling. On the other hand I could also point out you could test that with lie detectors and tests of certain hormone levels connected with being in love. I've read that love is chemically identical to eating six kilos of chocolate, although that is probably just an oversimplification.

That is kind of why I said that it seems to be enough for you. If you really experience God, then that is evidence for you.

As for the philosophical zombie thing... would it matter if she were? If you have someone to love and that someone's reaction is indiscernible from someone who loves you back, what's the harm? Would you tell as children they can't love their teddy bear? I don't know if that is a very good parable but nothing else pops to mind.

That just means you have sufficient evidence for yourself to believe those things. You already were skeptical, you have been satisfied. There is sufficient evidence for me being a human for instance: I answer in a manner that is not irrational or erratic; I am not like Cleverbot. I have no qualms with that, because I have identical beliefs.

On the brain in a computer thing I repeat a reaction similar to the wife example: Even if this were a game: these are the rules, these are the characters. We'd have to deal with it anyhow, so why care about the medium? It is real for us, or maybe just me if it is a simulation, but it still is real. I actually heard that some people have looked for physical laws that look arbitrary, i.e. they have no reason to be there so they might be like world limits in a game, and found some. I should probably read up on that before I talk any further though.

In the case of whether the world is a computer simulation, my position is near to Anteroinen's. But if one day I find that everything is a lie, and they let me choose where would I want to live (Matrix style), I don't know what I would do...
The good thing is that we could already prove if our universe is really a certain type of computer simulation. Check this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847
The main idea in that paper is that we could possibly determine if some aspects of reality are computable or not. Though I don't yet understand some of the technical details about lattice QCD, so I can't fully understand how.

There isn't any difference between those unless one is aiming for the burden of proof stance.

Well, sometimes depending on the verb it could change its meaning or add a connotation. For example consider: "I don't say that cats are blue" vs. "I say that cats aren't blue". They are not equivalent. But in the case of the verb "to believe" it looks like they are equivalent, unless you allow someone to not have a defined belief with respect to that.

[Anteroinen]

The good thing is that we could already prove if our universe is really a certain type of computer simulation. Check this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847
The main idea in that paper is that we could possibly determine if some aspects of reality are computable or not. Though I don't yet understand some of the technical details about lattice QCD, so I can't fully understand how.

Ah, you found what I was talking about.

[Redafro]

If you say you take away aspects of God if they are irrational, how will you know when to stop?

I wouldn't say I take away, just reformulate. If an experiment doesn't work, you try again with slightly different variables or a slightly different hypothesis. Same thing here. You don't ever stop unless you were to somehow achieve absolute knowledge of the subject, and then, how would you know you had absolute knowledge of the subject unless you had absolute knowledge? XD

That just means you have sufficient evidence for yourself to believe those things. You already were skeptical, you have been satisfied.

I have a hard time telling sometimes if people are arguing with me or just clarifying their own points. At any rate, I'll clarify mine.

I might be harping on this for no good reason, but I have a theory about skepticism and convictions, which is why I am harping. XD My point is when do "you have sufficient evidence for yourself?" What is that criteria? If we could have absolute knowledge (knowledge of all things) we could have absolute confirmation of anything. Yet we are too limited for this and must create lesser forms of confirmation. Repeatability is our next best tool, and on it we form the scientific method, yet the principle of repeatability (that is not generally the name... I forget an I have to leave soon, so that's what you get XP) cannot be confirmed by the principle of repeatability, thus we cannot know for certain if what is repeatable now will some day stop working. Corroboration, another aspect of the scientific method, is another great tool, yet science can't as yet show us other peoples internal experiences with which to compare and contrast our own (ie, we thus can't make universal statements about personal experiences). So what are we left with? At at some point, I believe we just have to trust that our personal experiences are true, that repeatability is leading us towards knowledge, and that other people are like ourselves. We might be in a very good simulation, but we simply trust that we are not. Now one could be skeptical that the world is real and not be violating any laws of reason, for as I've pointed out, the foundations of our beliefs are not confirm-able by our beliefs. In other words, we have no hard evidence to prove this is not a simulation. (Setting aside for an instant the cool looking research you guys are aware of that is beyond me right now XD).

So, to come at this another direction, everything in our experience, from what is happening now to our memory of the past, is all on the level of speculation (not universally confirm-able). Thus, before we can believe anything is true, before we can begin the process of proving things, we have to make a "leap of trust" as it where, to form a conviction that we will choose to believe that our senses are real. So, I think there is a beneficial humility in keeping in mind that we humans are so limited that we cannot confirm our basic tools of observation, our senses, and thus we should be humble in questioning our experiences and those of others. I'm contrasting humility, knowing our limitations, vs skepticism which seems capable of far more arrogance, seeing ourselves as more capable than we are.

That is where I was going. XD

[Vortex]

So, to come at this another direction, everything in our experience, from what is happening now to our memory of the past, is all on the level of speculation (not universally confirm-able). Thus, before we can believe anything is true, before we can begin the process of proving things, we have to make a "leap of trust" as it where, to form a conviction that we will choose to believe that our senses are real. So, I think there is a beneficial humility in keeping in mind that we humans are so limited that we cannot confirm our basic tools of observation, our senses, and thus we should be humble in questioning our experiences and those of others. I'm contrasting humility, knowing our limitations, vs skepticism which seems capable of far more arrogance, seeing ourselves as more capable than we are.

I agree with you. If you haven't clear your position you might run into some paradoxes. For example, you can tell someone has a neurological dysfunction that makes him perceive the world in the wrong way if you analyse his brain and find something that proves it. But you can't tell if it's really the other way, that is, for whatever reason everyone in the world was born with a dysfunction in the brain that makes us perceive the world in the wrong way, except that one, who somehow got his brain "cured" and perceive the world the right way. So how do we know if the reality we know is the right one or not, even if everyone agrees but that person (or even if everyone agrees with no exception)? We have to make an assumption, and if you wanted to be truly and totally skeptical you'd have to doubt you can know anything at all. So some people who think they are skeptical actually are contrasting others' beliefs with what has been established by the norm, and those people aren't (at least fully) skeptical because they aren't doubting the norm itself. On the other hand, there are some people who are truly skeptical, but in general I think the meaning of the word is somewhat dilluted, there are many degrees of skepticism.

[Anteroinen]

That just means you have sufficient evidence for yourself to believe those things. You already were skeptical, you have been satisfied.

I have a hard time telling sometimes if people are arguing with me or just clarifying their own points. At any rate, I'll clarify mine.

I was kind of doing both, I think.

My point is when do "you have sufficient evidence for yourself?" What is that criteria?

Perhaps when it is pragmatically evident or empirically testable. Since we cannot achieve absolute knowledge, this seems like the next best thing. Besides, evidence needn't be absolute to be convincing. But how to discern who is wrong or right? By evaluating pragmatic value and testing.

After all, the world has so far been consistent. There is no reason to believe that things will start falling up tomorrow, because it has yet to happen. Ever. Our sense also seem to be consistent, except under certain circumstances, e.g. drugs, so we can trust them most of the time. There are only a few premises to accept here, I suppose.

1) Reality exists. (It might be simulation but it exists anyway)
2) Reality is observable.
3) Truth can be narrowed in upon. (i.e. we can find the truth, or at least something very close to it by looking for it)

[Oleander]

The first sentence is passive and the second one is active,eg. denial of wrong and confirmation of right.
So your point is...

One allows room for skepticism and the other doesn't.

[Redafro]

I was kind of doing both, I think.

XP

Perhaps when it is pragmatically evident or empirically testable.

I agree, so long as we humbly admit we don't have anything like absolute certainty and thus we could be wrong. I do think it starts with pragmatism, with what works. From there, the human race has developed, as you put it, empirical testability.

But how to discern who is wrong or right? By evaluating pragmatic value and testing.

Well, do you mean deciding who you agree with, or judging others? I'm not so concerned about judging who is right, as I am deciding what I believe. Evaluating other people's beliefs, and having others evaluate my own, helps me do that.

Am I splitting hairs their? XD

1) Reality exists. (It might be simulation but it exists anyway)
2) Reality is observable.
3) Truth can be narrowed in upon. (i.e. we can find the truth, or at least something very close to it by looking for it)

Very nice principles! You get bonus points! *Achievement unlocked: foundational axioms of belief achieved.* XD

One allows room for skepticism and the other doesn't.

I don't know if there are actual rules of logic/grammar that establish that that is so, but I would think one can be skeptical regardless of which statement you utter.

I think I'll clarify. When I was talking about a conviction, or "leap of trust," especially in relationship to a God experiment, I'm very much thinking of a commitment as well. I am committed to seeking God in a similar way that I am committed to my wife. It is a relational thing. It can't be a cold, purely scientific evaluation; I have far too much skin in the game. This DOES I suppose imply a higher level of bias than starting from a form of atheism that leans more towards deism or is simply more detached from the results. However, as I've tried to say, to me God is a relational God, and it would be counter to that to be emotionally detached from him.

I wonder too, however, what we are getting at when we are concerned about other people's bias. I suppose we are concerned about charlatans who would deceive the gullible. I find I have two principles relating to this: first, I think it is a virtue to always test and reason through beliefs rather than simply trust that someone else has done so. Secondly, that so long as a belief system does not contradict any moral or natural law, and is not legislated, there is little harm in it.

[Oleander]

Science doesn't necessarily have to be emotionally detached or "cold". I'm pretty emotional about it.

[Vortex]

Maybe Redafro meant rational rather than scientific?