ingliz wrote:You said, "any mind".
Are you now saying you are not a mind?
No. That doesn't follow at all, I was arguing from the class to members of the class.
ingliz wrote:An argument that addresses justification rather than knowledge. On the reasonable assumption that knowledge requires justification.
What are you responding to with this remark.
ingliz wrote:1. Nothing is ever directly present to the mind in perception except perceptual appearances. (Indirectness Principle) Thus:
Define perceptual appearances.
ingliz wrote:2. Without a good reason for thinking perceptual appearances are veridical, we are not justified in our perceptual beliefs. (Metaevidential Principle)
3. We have no good reason for thinking perceptual appearances are veridical. (Reasons Claim)
4. Therefore, we are not justified in our perceptual beliefs. (Lyons 2016)
The problem of verdical and non-verdical images was addressed by later phenomenal idealists such as John Foster (
The Problem of Perception, 2000).
In sum, the Phenomenal Idealist rejects the distinction as meaningless. We have no problem saying that a boat oar visually bends when dipped in water while remaining straight via tactile sensation, etc. The perceptions are what they are after all.
Hallucinations and dreams are likewise perceptually real inasmuch as they are experienced, thus, if you see a pink elephant after dropping acid, you really see a pink elephant, the visual percept is valid.
So how do we know the differences between hallucinations and dreams from reality? only by correlation, continuity, and clarity. Which is indeed the only meaningful perceptual difference in point of fact.
Your case above attempts to create a problem where none exists.
ingliz wrote:Consider the following proposition, which seems clearly true:
(1) Necessarily, x depends on y for its existence iff y were not to exist, neither would x.
Now, consider the number four. If it depends on God for its existence, then the truth of Four exists depends counterfactually on the truth of the proposition God exists; if God exists were false, then Four exists would be false. According to the widely-accepted Lewis (1973) semantics for counterfactuals, any proposition is counterfactually implied by a necessarily false proposition. However, It is false that four exists is necessarily false, and thus counterfactually implies any proposition. So, it's also true that if four didn't exist, neither would God, and by (1) God depends on four for God's existence. This dependence relationship is problematic; the dependence relation between God and abstracta should be asymmetrical if we are to understand the claim that God is the source of being for abstract objects. (Davidson 2013)
This is all nonsense and accepts a rather strange theory regarding counterfactuals, for the argument you are attempting to critique could be expressed via
modus tollens or via a transcendental argument, which are both valid forms of argumentation.
ingliz wrote:God created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
(Ecclesiasticus 15:14)
The Book of Ecclesiasticus is accepted as part of the Christian biblical canons by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most of Oriental Orthodox.
But no one would interpret that phrase without commentary in those traditions, that would be pelagianism after all.
Besides, I'm a Lutheran anyway and do not accept ecclesiasticus as Scripture.
B0ycey wrote:Does your definition of perception require the ability to know all things in advance?
Of course not, for humans are perceiving agents but they do not know all things in advance, but that is the
point. If they don't know all percepts in advance, then they cannot be the source of their own perceptions (mental content).
Perceptual
origination must include this, for percepts are mental content known to an awareness, so when they are not in your awareness, then they must be known somewhere else. Something cannot give what itself does not have, which means only a mind can have and give mental content, so if the percepts cannot come from your own mind without you first being aware of them, then they must come from some other mind.
That is the point.
If percepts originate from your own mind, you would have to know them in advance by definition, because percepts are objects of awareness by every definition for a percept given by any philosopher.
B0ycey wrote:I don't know why a God is ever required when our bodies have the tools to allow us to perceive btw.
Because these tools cannot be proven, logically, to have an causal relationship with our perception; likewise, is the eye the source of images under your view (Decompositionalism), or does the eye merely "apprehend" what is "out there" (Realism) How does one know that one's sense accurately represents the external world, or is it unknowable (Kant); or perhaps you view certain aspects of perception to be dependent on your own mind like colors and tastes (secondary qualities) while extension and mass are "in the objects" as primary qualities (Locke)?
So which is it? What is your view?? Do you have a position or not?
If you want to know the Immaterialist answer to these dilemmas I can help you get there, but you have to be willing to have a conversation first.
B0ycey wrote: Your mentality is that of a creationist so why would biology be worth anything to you I guess? Although I do enjoy the arrogance of yours that by declaring your interest in philosophy on here that you somehow consider that your assumptions have some value on PoFo.
Ad-Hominems, why do you want to attack me personally instead of discussing my arguments?
B0ycey wrote:But what does it matter if a fallacy is in fashion btw? Or that everyone wants to consider me wrong? Is the opinion of internet personalities worth more than academics I wonder?
I don't even know what you are saying or who you are addressing here.
B0ycey wrote:Is it really a fallacy to consider the removal of eyes would also remove the ability to see?
Yes, without qualification, it would be a fallacy.
You could say that there is a correlation between the absence of eyes and claims to continual visual experience, but that is about it (that is not even completely true, as people who've lost their eyes often can still "see" images, memories, dreams, etc. So is "visual" experience really dependent on eyes even under that argument?).
Regardless, it is fallacious, as a necessary or absolute knowledge of such a proposition would require omniscience to prove a causal relationship.
B0ycey wrote: My point was that the removal of the brain would in fact remove the ability of the individual to experience perception
How do you know this?
B0ycey wrote:and if that was not the case, why can God not use the organs he created without the brain to create the phenomenon of perception if all that is required was his presence for perception to exist?
Perhaps He could, He could also make it rain chocolate syrup. Whats your point and how is this not a red-herring? I don't make any claims regarding any of this and have no need to, I only claim what I can directly perceive or necessarily infer (logically). The only claims about God in my argument are the ones I made, nothing else. What God "could" do or "would" do are all irrelevant.
I have only pointed out that inferring causation from correlation or sequence is logically fallacious, which is true.
B0ycey wrote:If you consider this to be fallacious,
I don't "consider" it fallacious, it
IS fallacious.
Because unless you have lived in all times and all places and have a direct awareness of every instance of a person's subjective state in correlation or sequence to brain-death, you cannot say that there is a necessary or absolute relationship between the brain's activities as we observe them and the subjective state of the one with said brain. This is why its a fallacy.
B0ycey wrote:then I can only assume that if you or a family member were diagnosed with a Brain Tumor, Parkinson's, Huntington's or Dementia, you wouldn't worry.
That doesn't follow at all, that you cannot infer a necessary (causal) relationship from observed correlations and sequences, doesn't mean you cannot recognize correlations and sequences as having patterns.
For instance, it is logically true that you cannot say that coldness is the cause of water freezing. I affirm this truth as the opposite would be a fallacy (the same ones I pointed out to you); however, I still acknowledge and recognize that when its is cold outside, water will typically freeze. That is an observed correlation and its one that I experience so often and with such regularity that I would even take preparations in advance to salt my driveway if I knew it was wet and the temperature was going to drop below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius.
The issue is not that we have sequential or correlative experiences regarding perceptual reality, the issue is inferring a causal relationship from these observations in order to conjure up a metaphysical system that makes absolute claims regarding the nature of reality. If such inferences are fallacious, as they are with physicalism, they must be dismissed.
B0ycey wrote:I do like the use of 'Gods Will' as an argument for everything. Although this is a good argument for those of faith, it is only an assumption that has absolutely no foundation to it -
You asked me about my belief, so I told you. I didn't ask you to believe it and nor did I intend to give proof for this as it was not part of my argument nor is it necessary to it.
B0ycey wrote:nd as such can just be dismissed as an Ad Hominem by myself.
Ad-Hominem?
Do you even know your fallacies bro? An
Ad-Hominem is an argument attacking someone personally, I don't see that happening in your quoted section.
B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless, science already knows what part of the brain affects the senses of an individual. As that is a fact, the correlation of the brain and the individuals senses isn't fiction but fact.
Ah, here comes the science.
Most science is fallacious, logically speaking. The entire scientific method is technically fallacious (the hypothetical deductive method asserts the consequent, which is fallacy); Likewise, inductive inferences are fallacious (composition fallacy) and are used constantly in science, plus scientists constantly commit
cum hoc and
post hoc fallacies.
For instance (regarding those latter two fallacies again):
Science does not know that the brain is the cause of certain sensations,
at best it can only record a correlation between certain portions of the brain doing something (as observed) and the testimony regarding persons pertaining to their sense-experiences. Even if experiments recorded this 100% of the time among 100 million people, it still would be fallacy to claim that the brain is the cause of sensation. It is logically erroneous, thus you can never claim the brain to be the cause of perception. B0ycey wrote:Although you can make a distinction to whether what we perceive is indeed what exists. And that is where Berkeley comes into play in the form of Subjective idealism. Although I know this form of thinking isn't to your liking if it doesn't involve a supreme being.
Why do you keep bringing the Supreme Being back into this, none of this discussion here has anything to do with it at all whatsoever. You knowing that I believe in God is tainting you ability to have this discussion i'm afraid.
B0ycey wrote:The fact you can remove oxygen to create a blackout means there is actually a tested method that someone can use to prove the correlation of oxygen, the brain and consciousness. This isn't a fallacy or assumption or anything else that you like to associate to my arguments but an actual fact.
If by fact you mean a correlation, then I agree, but that does not prove causation nor does it prove that there is no conscious experience occurring independent of the brain, it just means that every time a person's brain was killed off or denied oxygen, the subject stopped reporting via testimony of having a continual sense-experience.
To say more than this is fallacious, which is the whole point, for those trying to construct a scientific worldview, they must deny the authority of logic, but doing that is even more problematic and self-refuting.
B0ycey wrote:Well your opponent is correct. She is still free to believe in whatever she likes even if no proof can be given.
Well I don't deny this, I am not trying to make someone change their views at gunpoint, i'm just saying that if you are going to claim to hold to a worldview where matter is demonstrably true, then you should give demonstration. She is free to hold to her unproven and improvable position, but its inconsistent with the definition she accepted for her position and its not convincing in a debate.
B0ycey wrote:So while I will acknowledge your arguments and accept they are well presented as a claim that have a foundation to them, I will not accept that there is actually anything other than little evidence being presented by you - whether that be sources or logic. They are at best assumptions.
Well, it seems you have made up your mind and don't really have an interest in being convinced. So be it.
B0ycey wrote:Well you are correct. Because she was attacking your points which she disagreed with rather than address her own argument which was not up for debate. The presentation of this argument needs to be improved on actually. Being that you wanted to use the Law of parsimony to declare which argument was stronger, perhaps you should have addressed your argument, then she presents hers, and then the pair of you sliced away the assumptions of the arguments leaving just the facts to declare a winner. I don't know. That is up to you and your opponent to decide. But being that you believe your arguments are strong enough to be published and given actual peer review, what does the opinion of a PoFo laymen matter to you anyway?
You may be right that a different format could have been done, but keep in mind I was accepting a challenge, so I could only adjust the format so much within the parameters of what my opponent requested of me to demonstrate.
As for placing my arguments up elsewhere for peer review as an academic and posting them on PoFo, I do not think that everyone on PoFo is completely lay; indeed, I have found that some of the most helpful and brilliant critiques i have ever encountered for philosophical arguments have come from regular joes, students, etc., on the internet. I believe that my arguments get stronger through testing them, refining them,
et al.This is a test run of an argument that I have used online and in public debate on several occasions already, and in this environment i tested it again in the best form I have ever given it and again I have gained some valuable information for refining it even further in the future.
Indeed, whether you know it or not (probably not because I never told you), your critique of contraception argument in the contraception thread was the best critique given of it of everyone on there in spite of the fact that I have not considered you as particularly philosophical, but you managed to find a spot that I needed to strengthen in my argument's presentation (which I did in its re-presentation in my objective morality debate post).
No one else, included several who were likely more educated than you, presented anything even close as you had. So kudos.
So, like I said, I find these debates quite valuable. Academia can be an echo-chamber, but ideas are best tested in the wild, not in the lab, so-to-speak.
B0ycey wrote:OK. I will accept that.
Good, because the debate was not about God, that was not the main topic, I only added my proof to make Saeko happy because she wanted to see it.
B0ycey wrote:So you are at least acknowledging that you did not prove the existence of God - which you actually didn't right?
I would say that the proof I gave is only valid if the rest of the system is valid. Hence, there is no sense in discussing my proof for God's existence until the first three parts of my argument regarding human mentality and the nature of reality are discussed.
For instance, my proof for the Trinitarian God's existence assumes the truth of phenomenal idealism (immaterialism), phenomenal idealism assumes the truth of the claim human mentality is not physical reducible, and the claim that human mentality is not physically reducible is dependent on the notion that there is such a thing a human mentality.
If you notice, this is the reverse order of my argument. My argument started with an axiom of human mentality (establishing that there is such a thing and its undeniable), then I argued that such cannot be physically reduced, then I argued that ALL was mental (Immaterialism), and then i argued that this mental reality required that there be a God which is necessarily Trinitarian in nature.
So my point is, if you want to discuss my belief that the existence of God as rational, you are going to first have to discuss with me the nature of human mentality and the nature of reality.
B0ycey wrote:Although I would use the fact that Matter is 99.9% empty space, meaning that Human mentality must actually enhance Physical perception as evidence than take whatever approach you did. but I suspect you disagree with that statement too.
I would probably disagree with this too, but remember that atoms and matter are not necessarily the same thing in philosophy. The existence of material reality is only the claim that reality exists independent of being perceived by anyone and that it is causally related to what is perceived.
If atoms can be perceived in some sense, even with the use of instruments, my system will allow for their existence.
This is important because there is a lot of confusion regarding what Immaterialists are actually claiming. Immaterialists are not denying solidity, mass, objectivity (in the sense of things existing independent of my own personal mind), or molecules, etc.
Immaterialists only deny that such things can exist independent of anyone or anything perceiving them. We only claim for two types of thing to exist; minds and mental content (percepts being mental content).
B0ycey wrote:Where is this so called evidence that I can test? This is just more assumption btw. For this very reason, in my opinion, the burden of proof is still with you.
This is easy.
Anything you can possibly test, ANYTHING, is something that you must be aware of when testing it.
If you weren't aware of it, you couldn't test it.
My opponent has claimed that something exists that can never be tested or presented as evidence because it exists independent of awareness. (by definition not-testable).
So tell me now, how is my position the one with the burden of proof?
Please explain. Any test you do, will assume my position as true, that there are objects of awareness (physical stuff, what you might call evidence) and someone doing the test (an awareness).
I have only claimed that this is all that can be shown to exist. My opponent claims that something can exist beyond testability, beyond anyone being able to be aware of it or study it. You tell me how the burden of proof is with me? I showed that any argument, any evidence, any test, requires someone to be aware of the argument, evidence, or test. she claims there to be more than this,
she has the burden of proof. I was only asked to show that no physical reduction exists for human mentality, I did this by showing that every single criteria for establishing a reduction was fallacious. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE, or that it depended on human mentality itself (circular argument)
I have never more clearly satisfied a debate requirement in my entire life.
That is why I claimed victory, because I fulfilled what was asked of me.