appolose said: Final-Fan said: "What do you mean by saying sense data is all we have? (If we were talking about a method of truth for absolute knowledge I’d say that empiricism was not the only proposed method of truth)." To address the parenthesized first:  No, that's not what I mean, if I understand "method of truth" correctly.  I mean that the input we consciously receive is sense data, so in order to "do" anything (i.e. operate an input/output system) it is necessary to interpret sense data (the input).       And since an interactive input/output system pretty much by definition requires feedback to be effective (no?) then to be effective or "useful/practical" the I/O system must be capable of output that in turn affects the input.  None of this is contingent on the I/O system producing absolute truth.       What do you not understand or disagree with in the above three sentences?  And what, if anything, is amiss about the next most previous sentence?  You must tell me -- separately if possible. Confusion You say "OMFG I have no idea what you are talking about" and yet you don't tell me if my interpretation DIRECTLY ABOVE THAT is correct and (if not) where I am wrong and in what way.     Right, because I can’t understand you. I’m sorry. The interpretations you are giving are apart of what you are saying. Thus apart of what I’m having great difficulty understanding.    I could painstakingly go through all my difficulties with what you said and give you the possibilities running through my mind of what you meant and then give a response to every single one. But, seeing that much of our terminology apparently isn’t understood between us I’m not sure if it would make it clearer or just make it worse. I would rather just start over and make up new terms somehow step by step but it seems we have a different subject now anyway (empiricism is practical, not a way of gaining absolute knowledge). Hopefully we don’t have to use the former terminology much or in the same way on this subject. lol you’ve had me speechless at misunderstanding too, but I’m not making accusations. You have COMPLETELY IGNORED my assertion that your current defense of the assertion "any belief set is supported by sense data" stands in stark contradiction of earlier defenses of it.  I believe this is what you are referring to: So when you said "any belief set is supported by sense data" (and you now say that you meant "legitimate belief" instead of "ANY belief"), it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data", this makes no sense because you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all.    This is just an example of how difficult it is for me to grasp what’s happening in our confusion here. I never said only legitimate beliefs can be supported by sense data. I always stood by “any” beliefs. I think I once phrased it: legitimate and illegitimate beliefs could be supported by sense data. So apparently somewhere my terminology isn’t being understood and you’re able to induce this.    Besides that misunderstanding over my use of “any”, the difficulty also comes in the fact that I think I’ve elsewhere seen you use ‘legitimate belief’ in a way that confused me too. So it’s like I don’t know where to start explaining myself. I don’t know how far back in the scheme of explanation our terminology is being misunderstood.    You then said "it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data". I don’t know what that means. I know I never said that explicitly so our confusion on terminology has allowed you to induce that apparently.   You then say “you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all”. Nope. Nope I don’t. But this is certainly tedious terminology if said that way. Sense data is “evidence” for any belief (aka supports any belief). Thus it’s why it can’t be used to determine the correct belief. Anyway, that’s just an example of the confusion I’m having.    Alas, on to our new issue. Blurring the Distinction    The links lead me to a page (they both appeared to be the same) combining several things you said before in attempting to explain your “practical something thing” (not being sarcastic, I just don’t know what you prefer to call it in this way). They’re still just as confusing to me I’m afraid. You did have an addition at the end that seemed new.    And…*sigh*… I’m sorry but the more you explain your position the more confusion I have. In this new bit you defined “knowledge that is not absolute” as “would not necessarily be true for any belief set”. What does that mean? Stated conversely you would define absolute knowledge as that which would necessarily be true for any belief set. That still doesn’t make sense to me. I mean… if taken one way in my mind it would seem to contradict your view which is dependent on assumptions.    But but forget it, do you just mean something like “If we assume sense data is accurate we have a dependable system to operate within”?    Or do you mean something like “there is an assumption made for each particular arrangement of sense data you receive and it’s interaction with you is dependable”?    “Previous Three Sentences” and “Next Most Previous Sentence”    Um, how about did I just present your position correctly in two possibilities mentioned above? Otherwise I’m just gonna be giving you all my confusion again over those sentences or giving you a bunch of possibilities in my mind of what you meant. Isn’t this the “next most previous sentence” before the three? No, that's not what I mean, if I understand "method of truth" correctly. Is that what you were asking what is amiss about? My Original Issue Over Absolute Knowledge Not to get back into my original issue but I’m just curious as to why you think empiricism doesn’t give absolute knowledge (if not for the explanation I give of it). ps I find your tag line humorous in relation to all this: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

"Confusion" 
Maybe the train wreck is so severe at this point it's not worth it to go through the wreckage, but next time, please do go line by line detailing anything you don't understand. 

Contradictory defenses: 
Close, but no.  That is my criticism of your CURRENT defense.  My assertion that your current defense is incompatible with your previous defense of the SAME ASSERTION is repeated below for your convenience (original): 

Note that my objection becomes even stronger now that I know that "legitimate belief" = "absolute knowledge".  And I didn't apparently explicitly mention that your current interpretation of "belief" as meaning "legitimate belief" AKA "absolute knowledge" is completely contradictory to your old interpretation of "belief" as "interpretation of sense data", since you certainly cannot be suggesting that interpretations of sense data are absolute knowledge? 

Is it possible that you have forgotten what the original assertion was, and re-interpreted it as something different and are now defending a completely different position than what I originally objected to?

The current defense: 
1.  "I never said only legitimate beliefs can be supported by sense data. I always stood by “any” beliefs. I think I once phrased it: legitimate and illegitimate beliefs could be supported by sense data."
     YOU SAID THIS:  "I was never involving arbitrary beliefs (aka illegitimate beliefs). (Regarding the “any” statement issue)"
     THEREFORE I believed that "illegitimate beliefs" could be thrown out of the discussion entirely since your "ANY" assertion did not refer to them.  Why are you contradicting yourself?  How can I be expected to debate with a person who gives me contradictory positions to argue against?  Or am I somehow misunderstanding two sentences that appear crystal clear to me?

2.  "You then said "it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data". I don’t know what that means."
     I had thought that a legitimate belief was a belief that allowed one to apply a method of getting absolute knowledge. 

3.  "You then say “you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all”. Nope. Nope I don’t. But this is certainly tedious terminology if said that way. Sense data is “evidence” for any belief (aka supports any belief). Thus it’s why it can’t be used to determine the correct belief."
     I think we have conflicting definitions of "evidence" and "support".  To me, "evidence" is data that can be used to infer information.  I.e. fingerprints, to an empiricist, are evidence that a particular person was likely in a particular place at some point.  For example, if I thought that you, Colonel Mustard, had killed the Clue guy in the drawing room with the pipe; and if you not only denied that you had done so but furthermore denied that you had even been in that room in your life, then finding your fingerprints in that room would "support" my hypothesis and "discredit" your assertion. 
     If sense data is compatible with any belief at all, then it is hardly "evidence" of anything.  It is not capable of discrediting anything, nor IMO "supporting" anything (since it does not actually lend credence, or (dare I say it?) support to any belief in particular).  It is COMPATIBLE with any theory, which is different altogether.  I am prepared to admit that one of the definitions of "support" is compatibility, but anyway the key term was "evidence. 
     Also, didn't you notice the word "reliable"?  Are you saying that we can indeed "rely" on sense data as "evidence" for something?  If so, what?  And how is this not empiricism? 

"Blurring the Distinction"
1.  "The links lead me to a page (they both appeared to be the same)"
     No.  No, they aren't.  Just ....
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2005591
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2009969
     See the number at the end?  See how they're different?  That's because they're DIFFERENT POSTS.  And no, the content is not identical.  I double checked. 

2.  "Stated conversely you would define absolute knowledge as that which would necessarily be true for any belief set. That still doesn’t make sense to me. I mean… if taken one way in my mind it would seem to contradict your view which is dependent on assumptions."
     Yes, exactly.  How else could it be absolute?  The belief set might not BELIEVE it, but it would remain true, because it's true absolutely. 
     Conversely, non-absolute truth is true only once you have made certain assumptions (such as those necessary to engage in empiricism).  So in a belief set that did not subscribe to those assumptions, naturally that knowledge would no longer necessarily be true. 
     Think of it like a logic problem.  You start with ASSUMPTIONS like "P is true" or whatever.  So if you instead assumed P was false, you wouldn't necessarily get the same answer.  The answer is only true within the belief set of the presumptions the logic problem lays out.  Whereas the mechanisms you employ in the solving of the logic problem are absolute.  (I suppose "P is true" could hypothetically be an absolute truth, but let's not get into that -- the example is valid.)
     Does that help? 

3.  "do you just mean something like “If we assume sense data is accurate we have a dependable system to operate within”?"
     That statement is one that I agree with, but it is not the entirety of what I am talking about -- in particular it does not touch at all on why I assert that empiricism is more practical than other internally consistent belief sets. 

4.  "Or do you mean something like “there is an assumption made for each particular arrangement of sense data you receive and its interaction with you is dependable”?"
     If I understand this correctly -- and I'm not sure I do (the first part) -- then no, I don't think that each sense-data-arrangement gets its very own assumption.  In any case I don't think this is something my position hinges on.  But I suppose it might be more crucial than I think, since I'm not 100% on it. 

"The Three Sentences"
     No, as I said above, your hypotheses above didn't really address the "practical" thrust of my argument at all.  (Even the second one -- I'm quite sure of that.)  Let me start by quoting them:
     "I mean that the input we consciously receive is sense data, so in order to "do" anything (i.e. operate an input/output system) it is necessary to interpret sense data (the input). 
     "And since an interactive input/output system pretty much by definition requires feedback to be effective (no?) then to be effective or "useful/practical" the I/O system must be capable of output that in turn affects the input.  None of this is contingent on the I/O system producing absolute truth." 
     The first sentence:  (a) does not consider non-sensed yet consciously received data, since (1) I think all input consciously received can be considered "sensed" and (2) even input that is somehow non-sensed yet consciously received (such as revelation, I presume?) is in the same boat as sensed data IMCO as far as fallibility goes;
     (b) (is there anything unclear about what "consciously received" means?  You receive data and are aware of the fact);
     ( c ) defines "doing" as operating an input/output system (any objections?);
     (d) asserts that you have to interpret the input in order to operate said system (any objections?);
     (e) does not consider input that is not consciously received (i.e. your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it), because you cannot use it in any deliberate fashion.  It is an unknown factor that by definition cannot be accounted for except by reexamining one's own thoughts.  In any case it is totally useless as far as input/output systems go.  (... isn't it?) 
     The second sentence:  (a) asserts that an input/output system where there is no feedback response at all is useless; (b) ("feedback response" being the input in some way acknowledging or responding to output)
     The third sentence:  notes that neither the first nor second sentences depend on the input (or output) being absolute truth.  (Do you disagree, and if so, why?)
     Have I left any stone unturned?  I sure hope not, because that's pretty long already.  Is there any remaining confusion about what I was saying in those three sentences? 

Next most previous sentence:
Yes.  (If there was some discrepancy to you between the first sentence and the next three, then there was probably a serious issue; if no discrepancy was apparent, then I didn't want to mess with it in that discussion, since I wanted to focus on replying to the question, rather than the parenthetical remark.)

"My Original Issue over Absolute Knowledge"
To be honest I don't actually remember your explanation.  But anyway, Descartes asked how we could know absolutely for sure that we weren't dreaming all of our existence (or in the Matrix or whatever), and I don't have an answer ... so obviously if the world we sense isn't absolute beyond question, then observation-based science (or any sense-based belief set) is not absolute either.  But that doesn't mean it's not practical. 

donathos said: Would it be possible for a person to "absolutely believe" that sense data, logic, empricism, etc., are methods by which "absolute knowledge" could be divined? Is it possible that empiricism, as a method, could be "revealed" to a person as a proper way to come to truth/"legitimate beliefs"/whatever-it-is-we're-calling-it-atm?

    As I am confined to my mind, I can say that my meaning of the word truth confesses coherency. It's just something inseparable with that meaning. Thus no, as I the meaning of empiricism and rationalism are contradictory, they could not be true "for anyone else".

    I know you are attempting to pose hypothetical situations where maybe someone doesn't 'realize' an implication and believes an explicit pronouncement anyway but... as epistemology is in my head... I can only confess what is absolute truth as I know it. Meaning that since I absolutely know empiricism and rationalism are contradictory it's not possible for me to believe that truth would contradict what I have of it when given to someone else.

    There's certainly a lot of contradictory things you could set up by just saying "well what if someone has absolute truth that..." but again that would already either go against the meaning of truth or go against the very absolute knowledge I already have.

 

    Without thinking on it too much I could pose the possibility that perhaps certain absolute truths are dependent on one another... I have no idea if that's even relevant to bring up though lol.

    Also, whatever problems you attempt to bring up by the "power of hypothesis" I think can also be applied to any person, whether using a failure of a method or not. If it's 'mere belief' (not absolute truth) that carries us, we would be in the same predicament of realizing something we believed was actually contradictory. Thus, always stuck with the possibility that any one of our beliefs were also equally unstable.

ManusJustus said: mmnin said: I did tell you to shut up if you weren't going to be more civil. One person believes one thing, person 2 believes something else.  Person 1 says the second person is delusional.  The second person getting angry says the first person is believing a fairytale and is delusional.  The first person then gets even more angry and starts shouting insults, though he was the one picking the fight to begin with.  The Second person then starts throwing punches.  The first person then takes a gun and shoots the second.  All I can say from your last post is, what?  I'll try to garner more productive debate in another manner. Lets assume God exists and that God created the universe and is all powerful.  Man is more powerful than an ant, yet nothing compared to the difference between God and man.  A man puts ants in an ant farm, feeds them, watches over them, but he requests that the ants pay homage to him in return for his good deeds.  If the man feels the ants disobey him or do not pay proper respect to them, he takes the ants out and tortures them horribly. We would all say that the man is being ridiculous, yet when we look at God we think his actions are not so ridiculous.  Why would a God want people to worship him?  Why would he reward or punish should inferior creatures in such a way that is described in the Bible?  Why is God angry, or jealous? The answer is that God was created by man, and naturally man gave God human-like characteristics.  This explains why God has the personality of a human king in 5,000 BC.  At that time men desired to be worshipped, they were very angry, jealous, and vengeful against others, and if possible they ruled with a iron-fist.  Actions God commanded of his Old Testament followers were harse and ridiculous by today's standards, but were on par with mankind at that time.

You do make a good point with the bolded comment when considered from the perspective that you view it, but I don't think you fully understand the standpoint that Christians look at God.  You seem to be taking what sticks out to you, as a result of your views on the topic, and using it as you would like.  This is not entirely bad.  It is something that a lot of people do, even those who believe.  It is a quality that we have as people, to speak from what we understand and what speaks to us.  I do appreciate you having a much more productive tone in that post.

Let me speak from my own personal standpoint as a Christian for a moment.  I don't believe that God made us to be subserviant to Him.  Yes, in the end He hopes us to believe in Him, but not by force.  Also, just as you (or anyone) may think you (or they) love someone and not really love them, the same can be true of someone who says they love God.  You could simply be obsessed with the other person or you might be using them to fill a need.  Perhaps you just accept the person's existence.  You could also just be saying it to get your way, or you could be saying it to appease someone else.  You could be saying it because you are under the influence of another force all together such as drugs or a deluded sense of love.  These are all possible in the diversity that is a fully capable human being.  As a typical Christian, one believes that God created the world.  While as a Christian, I believe that God created this world with everything in it and included sin in this process, to provide the best environment for us to reach our greatest potential as diverse, wonderfully expressive human beings.  I believe that it is in our individuality and personalities, that give meaning to the words "I love you."  Just as many people would rather hear an "I love you" from a unique person than from a drone conditioned to say it.  Sin is as it is because it takes away from the person's heart and who the person is as a whole.  It demeans the quality of the person and the meaning of their "I love you."  Developing ourselves to such a heightened and meaningful degree as people may not be possible without the presence of sin.  Making moral choices are important for growth and individuality.

The old testament was written as it is because Society was young.  While they weren't incapable, just as any intelligent person without enough experiences, they may not be able to make all the connections necessary to make good decisions or to read between the lines.  That is why a set of guidelines were issued.  Similar to when you tell your child to or not to do something, because they haven't lived enough or developed enough to know for themselves.   That is why the new testament is much more open to human decisions.  It isn't the act that matters so much as the reason for the act, but it wasn't until Society had grown enough that they could have hoped to make those decisions well.  I believe that Jesus giving His teachings and more specifically His dying on the cross was in many ways the symbol of the age of accountability for mankind.

I don't think I fully addressed your comment about punishment.  I think, again personally from my Christian perspective, that children of God are the ones more subject to punishment.  Those who believe but then ignore Him on a given issue.  Most of the time it isn't so much that they are punished though.  It is that they didn't do what He already knew to be the "right" thing to do, whether it be something that God intervened with or not, we all can say that there are choices and then there are "better" choices.  Well God will likely lead one to the "better" choice.  So by not choosing the better choice, of course they are left with outcomes that are not as ideal.  Thus they are somewhat punished by their decision, but is that really Him punishing them or them punishing themselves, another tactic of establishing identity?  Also, if a person were to live their life without that guidance and sought out an existence without God, then if they were sent to a location that did not have God in it, assuming that God, Heaven, and Hell exist in their absolute, then naturally the person would go where he had sought, a location without God, being Hell.  So again, not so much a punishment as it is simply a chosen direction.  The nature of that location is what it is, just as we know what to expect if we go to Walmart, though I don't think that we would consider what inconveniences are amongst what we came for to be "punishment."  Obviously by that time, the person had come to terms and accepted the decision, so they are getting what they wanted so to speak.  God has, however, been known to more directly intervene if He sees an absolute need to, something that at times might be more seen as a punishment.  A typical Christian believes that God knows all.  He knows what will and will not take place ahead of time, so if a direct intervention is necessary, then regardless if we understand the reasoning behind it, chances are it was still justified, but not in contrast with His "loving" nature, simply acting on knowledge that we do not have and may be essential that we not have in order for the process to happen as it should.  Much of this has to do with an understanding of God and a trust for Him though.  If you don't understand Him or trust Him, then this won't fully make rational sense or seem to matter.

appolose said:

At the moment, I'm not trying to challenge your idea of "absolute knowledge" as such, but just to get a sense of how it might work, and (most importantly) to figure out how we can tell the difference between absolute knowledge and "mere belief."

So far, I can't see how we know the difference, except to have more absolute knowledge (I absolutely know that I absolutely know something) and, like Final-Fan suggested, that seems to run into a problem of infinite regress.

But, that aside, let's see what we can figure out...

As I am confined to my mind, I can say that my meaning of the word truth confesses coherency. It's just something inseparable with that meaning. Thus no, as I the meaning of empiricism and rationalism are contradictory, they could not be true "for anyone else".

Okay, if I understand correctly, you absolutely know that empiricism and rationalism are "contradictory."  (What is it they're meant to contradict, by the way?)

Now, to be honest, I didn't think that was your original position--I thought that, originally, you felt that nothing could be contradictory; that sense data would be consistent with an infinite number of interpretations, including empiricism, but that empiricism's consistency would not prove that it is a method of truth.  But: if your problem was that we could not prove empricism as a method of truth, I thought that "revelation" might do the trick.

Am I to understand now that I had not understood your position correctly?  That, it isn't just that empiricism cannot be proved (because all such proof relies on empirical claims), but that empiricism, by its nature, is contradictory?

If so, can that be proved?  Or am I expected to "just know it" as, perhaps, you "just know it" to be true?

Besides that, let's suppose that you absolutely know that empiricism is contradictory.  And I absolutely know that empiricism is a method of acquiring absolute knowledge.  Are we strictly at an impasse?  Or is there some way that we can suss out which of our beliefs is actually absolute knowledge?  (As you seem to suggest that they cannot somehow both be true.)

Now, I know that you'll feel that, as you're "confined to your mind," I'm just some interpretation of sense data going on, and so my claim to "absolutely know" something doesn't amount to much.  Well, and not to be too... uh... ridiculous about everything... but how do you know that I'm not the voice of absolute knowledge trying to reach you, to let you know that empiricism is valid after all?

And, from my point of view (if you're not a solipsist and grant that I exist as a consciousness as well), if I absolutely know that empiricism is valid, then why should I be open to what you say?  Shouldn't I immediately dismiss your claims as mere belief?  How can you ever show me anything that could convince me that what I absolutely know to be true is not actually true?

Meaning that since I absolutely know empiricism and rationalism are contradictory it's not possible for me to believe that truth would contradict what I have of it when given to someone else.

So, to use this absolute knowledge as an example, how do you know it to be absolute knowledge?  If I understand correctly, in order to know what it is, you would have to know where it comes from; i.e. whether it's "revealed knowledge" or if it is a mere belief that came to you from your own abilities.

Without getting too deep into questions regarding "memory," per se, what is your memory of how you came to your current absolute knowledge regarding empiricism?  Is it something that you've always had?  For instance, as a child, when you first "saw" that the sky was blue, did you know that it wasn't trustworthy?  That you could not rely on that which you saw?

Or did it seem to be true to you at the time?  Was your skepticism something that you came to absolutely know later in your life (after seeing, for instance, photos like the "piano" that you've posted in this thread)?  Did your revelation coincide with being presented with "sense data" that would "support" such skeptical claims?

Thus, always stuck with the possibility that any one of our beliefs were also equally unstable.

Does the possibility exist that your beliefs re: empiricism, skepticism, etc., might be "unstable"?

donathos said:

How we can tell the difference between absolute knowledge and "mere belief."

 

    Only the mind holding them would know that. If you found yourself not 100% sure of something or able to doubt it apparently you don’t absolutely know it.

    I’m not sure I understand the claim that an infinite regress would be inherent to this.

 

What is it they're meant to contradict, by the way?

 

    I mean those methods are contradictory when stated with the conclusion “this is a method of gaining knowledge”, in so many words, at the end.

    E.g. An aspect of rationalism: Deducing propositions from other propositions means (aka therefore) a way to gain first propositions about the world. …No, it doesn’t mean that. (Or rather, this can be stated simplistically: “Logic is a way to gain truth”). …Really it’s like saying a bachelor is a banana.

 

I thought that, originally, you felt that nothing could be contradictory; that sense data would be consistent with an infinite number of interpretations, including empiricism, but that empiricism's consistency would not prove that it is a method of truth.  But: if your problem was that we could not prove empricism as a method of truth, I thought that "revelation" might do the trick.

 

    Hmm possibly there is a misunderstanding taking place over what is meant by ‘method of truth’. A method of truth, like empiricism (which, don’t be confused by the wording, I’m only placing empiricism in the category of proposed ‘methods of truth’ – obviously I’m not saying it actually works and gives truth in giving it that categorization title) is not an interpretation.

    An interpretation is a possible belief on what sense data represents.

    A method of truth merely means “a way to gain truth (aka absolute knowledge)”.

    Empiricism and rationalism are examples of proposed methods of truth that are supposed, by their adherents, to guarantee that their produced belief is true (aka absolute knowledge).

   Methods of truth are not a belief about the world. A method of truth is something being examined in your head… in the realm of meanings you might say, like basic math (this also could be ambiguously called ideas). Thus a meaning/idea (method of truth) is not something we are ‘seeking to prove’ in the same manner as something about the world. On the contrary, something about the world is sought to be proven by the method. (E.g. evidentialism: I know X murdered Y because I found the fingerprints of X on the murder weapon.)

    Perhaps there is another misunderstanding as well. Sense data does not mean ‘empiricism’. Empiricism is the specific claim that “sense data can be used to gain [further] truth about the world”. I say further of course, because sense data in its “un-interpreted form” is a bit of absolute knowledge in itself – it is just known to me, it is just “there”. Right when I “interpret it” (organize/create an entity out of it in my mind and/or establish specific natures to any entity in my mind) it’s now a belief about sense data.

 

    When I say you can have an infinite number of interpretations I’m referring to the number of beliefs that can be consistent with any moment of sense data. No need to really get caught up in whether or not there are truly an “infinite” number of beliefs in any hypothetical arrangement of sense data. (Although there’s always the dream-like possibilities: your dreaming, something is screwing with your mind, etc.)

    If you’re referring to someone’s defense that they can make interpretations of sense data over a period of time that do not contradict each other, I hope I don’t have to explain why that doesn’t mean any interpretation is true *sigh* *sick of hearing himself talk so much*.

 

Besides that, let's suppose that you absolutely know that empiricism is contradictory.  And I absolutely know that empiricism is a method of acquiring absolute knowledge.  Are we strictly at an impasse?

…

And, from my point of view (if you're not a solipsist and grant that I exist as a consciousness as well), if I absolutely know that empiricism is valid, then why should I be open to what you say?  Shouldn't I immediately dismiss your claims as mere belief?  How can you ever show me anything that could convince me that what I absolutely know to be true is not actually true?

 

    That’s an example of what I was previously describing. You can hypothetically suggest two people with opposing absolute knowledge (just like you can set up two people with opposing ‘mere belief’ – if that’s all we have).

    But, as this is being brought to my mind, truth means truth and it won’t not-be-what-it-is for another mind. I absolutely know empiricism is contradictory (not a working method of truth) so I know you can’t have absolute knowledge otherwise. Literally this would be like proposing the hypothetical situation (without making it confused in epistemic terminology): What if (hypothetically) the sun exists for John and also it doesn’t exist for Jane. Either I just confess I have no idea what that would mean for reality or I say well, whatever that is, it can’t be my problem because I know otherwise. Might as well ask if I’m hypothetically wrong about something I absolutely know.

    But as far as “how do we deal with an apparent disagreement”, yes, we are “stuck” – if there’s a “sovereign source of truth” and I am not that source, then I have no certain method of making it appear in your mind by some external demonstration or argument.

 

Now, I know that you'll feel that, as you're "confined to your mind," I'm just some interpretation of sense data going on, and so my claim to "absolutely know" something doesn't amount to much.  Well, and not to be too... uh... ridiculous about everything... but how do you know that I'm not the voice of absolute knowledge trying to reach you, to let you know that empiricism is valid after all?

…

So, to use this absolute knowledge as an example, how do you know it to be absolute knowledge?

 

    1. Well, maybe I understood you wrong but, I’m not an empiricist so I’m certainly not saying that I would know you through an interpretation of sense data.

    2. Asking me if I would know if you’re the voice of absolute knowledge would “beg the question” in a manner of speaking. Only when I absolutely know something do I absolutely know it. If it was dependent on judging the “voice” to figure out if it was coming from “mr. source guy” then it wouldn’t be the method I’m proposing at all, but rather, the method of voicism lol (whatever that would mean).

    (Can’t help but remember the significance of John 10 by all this. Lots of bible stuff relating to knowledge.)

    If I happen to absolutely know where my absolute knowledge is coming from, well, cool. That’s just another bit of information I absolutely know now. (Further, even if knowing where absolute knowledge was coming from was somehow believed to be necessary for knowing the absolute knowing (lol) then that’s just one addition to the method of revelation you could make. So now not only are you imputed absolute knowledge of X you are also imputed where this knowledge came from at the same time. Trying to say we need a method to know where knowledge of X comes from only ignores the answer of revelation in the first place.)

    This may seem disjointed but I can’t think of how to connect it better at the moment: The significance of proposing that absolute knowledge comes from revelation was merely in regards to answering the question of epistemology coherently – that is, without being problematic like empiricism and rationalism.

 

If I understand correctly, in order to know what it is, you would have to know where it comes from; i.e. whether it's "revealed knowledge" or if it is a mere belief that came to you from your own abilities.

 

    Hopefully I made it clear above that this is not my position. Although I believe I even addressed the contention, not mine, that absolute knowledge had to be accompanied by the absolute knowledge that it came from the absolute knowledge source thing 0_o. That’s not really a problem. It just says that both bits of absolute knowledge are dependent on one another and must be revealed at the same time.

 

Without getting too deep into questions regarding "memory," per se, what is your memory of how you came to your current absolute knowledge regarding empiricism?  Is it something that you've always had?  For instance, as a child, when you first "saw" that the sky was blue, did you know that it wasn't trustworthy?  That you could not rely on that which you saw?

 

    Just in case there was a misunderstanding, sense data is not “unreliable” in the sense that I don’t acknowledge its existence or that it is some knowledge of reality. It’s the question of what it represents that stands as the focus of my criticism on the doctrine of empiricism.

    Whether or not I had absolute knowledge that there was a sky and that it was blue when I was a child is a different question of whether or not I realized (had absolute knowledge of) sense data couldn’t actually be the source from which I derived such knowledge.

     The revelation of the doctrine of empiricism and that it was contradictory came later to me. It’s not a principle that, when realized by itself, necessarily affects whether or not you have any absolute knowledge. It only informs you on the question of where absolute knowledge comes from.

 

Does the possibility exist that your beliefs re: empiricism, skepticism, etc., might be "unstable"?

 

    No, in the sense of whether or not it’s a question in my mind, I said I have absolute knowledge otherwise. The comment you’re referring to was in regards to that which was not absolute knowledge.

   (Just a side note. This may seem disjointed but maybe you can catch what I’m referring to [just trying to avoid more explanation]: The use of naming “possibilities” I think can be ambiguous.)

Final-Fan said:

Anyway, it seems to me that this supposed absolute knowledge would fit into two categories: 
(1) consciously received:  I would hope we can both agree on what this phrase means, but if there is any hint of doubt we can discuss it.  [edit: Described in another post as "You receive data and are aware of the fact".]
(2) not consciously received:  i.e. one just HAS it.  [edit: Also described in another post as "your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it".]

I don’t see the two categories you’re making.

    The first thing you say I could only understand to be the knowledge of “knowing you are receiving knowledge” which sounds somewhat similar to knowing where you are getting your knowledge from. Either way, it’s just one of many things you can be given to know.

    The second thing sounds like just knowing something… apart from knowing anything else about it (e.g. where it came from) since that would be just another thing to know. And that’s just what is meant in revelation.

    If these are not what you mean…*sigh* I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere fast cause it’s just another sign that we don’t speak the same “language”.

 

Now, if (1) is the case, how do we know it is in fact absolute knowledge?  It seems to me that you are saying that one is also given absolute knowledge that the other absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge.  I hope you can see the infinite loop this devolves into, no better than "just because", or "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so". 
     The only way to avoid this problem is to simply trust that the giver is both honest and correct, which is clearly "faith" by any reasonable definition. 

 

    I just wrote about this with donothos. I mean, as I don’t understand the distinction you made, it still seems like you are simply criticizing revelation as a way of gaining knowledge by saying, in some sense, “How do you really know you have absolute knowledge”.

    Asking this basically just dismisses the method of revelation right from the start. If suddenly you have absolute knowledge of X… how could you ask “wait… even though I have absolute knowledge of X… how do I really know X?”. If you ask that, apparently you don’t have absolute knowledge of X, so, really, it’s not happening to suggest in the first place.

    Receiving absolute knowledge is not dependant on whether or not you know who or what imputed it to you (that’s just another thing to know). If, however, one does think that’s important I do respond to that in the post with donothos.

    No, it’s not like an argument that says “I know the bible is true because the bible says it is true”. That’s certainly not the method of revelation I’m proposing. In this context a person would say “I know the bible is true because it has been revealed to me.” Realize something very important here. There’s a difference between “proving your belief to someone else – aka giving them your absolute knowledge” (side note: if that is even possible) and merely receiving absolute knowledge yourself. That is to say, a person telling you he knows the bible is true by revelation isn’t supposed to convince you of anything (as that would assume a method of truth you could call believing-what-your-told-ism). Certainly it would still remain in question to you… until you find yourself absolutely knowing about it. As I’ve been saying to donothos: This question of epistemology is in your head.

 

If (2) is the case, I do not see any way we can differentiate it from a "belief" that comes from within us and is not trustable.  It would take "faith" that this is absolute knowledge and not just a belief. 

 

    The differentiating between absolute knowledge and anything else would already be in your mind. If it’s something you’re not absolute sure about or rather, are able to question in your mind, then it’s not absolute knowledge.

    Addressing the use of faith: The use of “faith” as I see it used just seems to imply that one “doesn’t really know” but he’s taking a guess at it or something lol. Well, that wouldn’t be absolute knowledge either if used in that sense. If faith is meant as in “knowledge you cannot demonstratively prove to another person” then I think you could indeed call the knowledge of revelation “faith”.

 

Your "quite logical" explanation only works because it PRESUMES that the absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge, which is begging the question.  (Note:  Unless you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so ... I hope you can truly assure me that you are not saying this.) 

 

    Presumes? Actually that’s been called the law of identity (aka logic) to say that X is X and not non-X. In this case, absolute knowledge is absolute knowledge and not anything that it's not. I don’t see that as some sort of random presupposition. It’s not begging the question, it’s an analytical proposition.

    If you find yourself all the sudden with absolute knowledge of something… what question is there to beg? If you are able to doubt it, then apparently it’s not absolute knowledge as you are inevitably aware of the moment you doubt it.

    I’m not sure what you meant in your side note. It almost sounds like what you may have meant what I’m saying though. I’m reading it over and over again and it eludes me. “Absolute certainty”? hmmm Then “absolute certainly” does something (interesting).

Final-Fan said: 1.  YES!!! YESYESYESYES!  AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FINALLY! I have a feeling this could allow for substantial progress.  Even if not, at least we've gotten somewhere.  2.  I think at this point you need to define "method" and "method of truth".  You have used the phrase "method of truth" many many times, and I do not recall you ever defining it, and I want you to now.  Probably I should have asked this some time ago.  Also:  "Other methods".  I suppose you refer to something based on revelation, correct?  (If not, then what?  Or, if "yes, but there is a third possibility", then what is that?)  Is there any input possible besides "sense data" and "revelation"?  (I leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether those two are even separate.)  And would you agree that any legitimate belief about the world must eventually hinge on some form of input?

A method of truth means "a way to gain truth (aka absolute knowledge)". E.g. A man doubts his informer that says the world is flat and he wonders how he can be sure of this. A method of truth is something we're mulling over in our head (call it of the realm of analyticals or, ambiguously, the realm of ideas), it's not something we're going out to discover in the world. Rather, the world is the thing we're hoping to discover in truth through a method.

Other methods of truth would be rationalism, constuctivism, "presuppositionalism" (ambiguous). I'm sure there are many many more proposed but actually I think they're all actually variations of sense data (ambiguously called "experience") and rationality.

Yes, having truth is contingent upon obtaining it lol. "Input" if you will.

Actually, I could certainly call sense data revelation in that sense. Again, I don't say sense data doesn't exist or has nothing to do with reality. It's the empiricist doctrine I argue against that says we can "use" sense data to gain "further information" of reality (i.e. what that sense data represents - such as any particular entity [part or whole] and what nature it may have).

appolose said:

Ha! :)

I had my customary point-by-point response nearly complete when my computer flipped-out a bit and lost it... (at which point I also flipped-out a bit and lost it!)

I can't bring myself to try to retype it all, so let me get right to the heart:

appolose said: donathos said: Besides that, let's suppose that you absolutely know that empiricism is contradictory.  And I absolutely know that empiricism is a method of acquiring absolute knowledge.  Are we strictly at an impasse? … And, from my point of view (if you're not a solipsist and grant that I exist as a consciousness as well), if I absolutely know that empiricism is valid, then why should I be open to what you say?  Shouldn't I immediately dismiss your claims as mere belief?  How can you ever show me anything that could convince me that what I absolutely know to be true is not actually true?       That’s an example of what I was previously describing. You can hypothetically suggest two people with opposing absolute knowledge (just like you can set up two people with opposing ‘mere belief’ – if that’s all we have).       But, as this is being brought to my mind, truth means truth and it won’t not-be-what-it-is for another mind. I absolutely know empiricism is contradictory (not a working method of truth) so I know you can’t have absolute knowledge otherwise. Literally this would be like proposing the hypothetical situation (without making it confused in epistemic terminology): What if (hypothetically) the sun exists for John and also it doesn’t exist for Jane. Either I just confess I have no idea what that would mean for reality or I say well, whatever that is, it can’t be my problem because I know otherwise. Might as well ask if I’m hypothetically wrong about something I absolutely know.     But as far as “how do we deal with an apparent disagreement”, yes, we are “stuck” – if there’s a “sovereign source of truth” and I am not that source, then I have no certain method of making it appear in your mind by some external demonstration or argument.

What I gather here is that: you "know what you know"; you're not open to being shown anything to the contrary, because you cannot conceive of doubting that which you claim to know; your system allows for no ways of dealing with "apparent disagreement" and you cannot make a case for your views via "external demonstration or argument."

Though I agree that this is the only apporpriate and logical position for your views (and I said as much many many posts ago), it's slightly exasperating because it calls into question the very idea that there can be anything gained by our discussion.

While I take some solace in knowing that, the very fact you argue for your position implies that you don't yourself believe it at heart... the rest of me is discouraged.

I mean, just so we're clear, we don't have to be dealing in "hypotheticals"; I know that empiricism is a "working method of truth," and therefore your claims to "absolutely know" the contrary are certainly false.

And for all I can tell, since you'll admit to no evidence to the contrary (despite the fact that both you and I have a lifetime's worth of it), that does indeed mean that we're at an impasse.

appolose said: Final-Fan said: Anyway, it seems to me that this supposed absolute knowledge would fit into two categories:  (1) consciously received:  I would hope we can both agree on what this phrase means, but if there is any hint of doubt we can discuss it.  [edit: Described in another post as "You receive data and are aware of the fact".] (2) not consciously received:  i.e. one just HAS it.  [edit: Also described in another post as "your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it".] I don’t see the two categories you’re making.     The first thing you say I could only understand to be the knowledge of “knowing you are receiving knowledge” which sounds somewhat similar to knowing where you are getting your knowledge from. Either way, it’s just one of many things you can be given to know.     The second thing sounds like just knowing something… apart from knowing anything else about it (e.g. where it came from) since that would be just another thing to know. And that’s just what is meant in revelation.     If these are not what you mean…*sigh* I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere fast cause it’s just another sign that we don’t speak the same “language”.   Now, if (1) is the case, how do we know it is in fact absolute knowledge?  It seems to me that you are saying that one is also given absolute knowledge that the other absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge.  I hope you can see the infinite loop this devolves into, no better than "just because", or "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so".       The only way to avoid this problem is to simply trust that the giver is both honest and correct, which is clearly "faith" by any reasonable definition.        I just wrote about this with donothos. I mean, as I don’t understand the distinction you made, it still seems like you are simply criticizing revelation as a way of gaining knowledge by saying, in some sense, “How do you really know you have absolute knowledge”.     Asking this basically just dismisses the method of revelation right from the start. If suddenly you have absolute knowledge of X… how could you ask “wait… even though I have absolute knowledge of X… how do I really know X?”. If you ask that, apparently you don’t have absolute knowledge of X, so, really, it’s not happening to suggest in the first place.     Receiving absolute knowledge is not dependant on whether or not you know who or what imputed it to you (that’s just another thing to know). If, however, one does think that’s important I do respond to that in the post with donothos.     No, it’s not like an argument that says “I know the bible is true because the bible says it is true”. That’s certainly not the method of revelation I’m proposing. In this context a person would say “I know the bible is true because it has been revealed to me.” Realize something very important here. There’s a difference between “proving your belief to someone else – aka giving them your absolute knowledge” (side note: if that is even possible) and merely receiving absolute knowledge yourself. That is to say, a person telling you he knows the bible is true by revelation isn’t supposed to convince you of anything (as that would assume a method of truth you could call believing-what-your-told-ism). Certainly it would still remain in question to you… until you find yourself absolutely knowing about it. As I’ve been saying to donothos: This question of epistemology is in your head.   If (2) is the case, I do not see any way we can differentiate it from a "belief" that comes from within us and is not trustable.  It would take "faith" that this is absolute knowledge and not just a belief.        The differentiating between absolute knowledge and anything else would already be in your mind. If it’s something you’re not absolute sure about or rather, are able to question in your mind, then it’s not absolute knowledge.     Addressing the use of faith: The use of “faith” as I see it used just seems to imply that one “doesn’t really know” but he’s taking a guess at it or something lol. Well, that wouldn’t be absolute knowledge either if used in that sense. If faith is meant as in “knowledge you cannot demonstratively prove to another person” then I think you could indeed call the knowledge of revelation “faith”.   Your "quite logical" explanation only works because it PRESUMES that the absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge, which is begging the question.  (Note:  Unless you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so ... I hope you can truly assure me that you are not saying this.)        Presumes? Actually that’s been called the law of identity (aka logic) to say that X is X and not non-X. In this case, absolute knowledge is absolute knowledge and not anything that it's not. I don’t see that as some sort of random presupposition. It’s not begging the question, it’s an analytical proposition.     If you find yourself all the sudden with absolute knowledge of something… what question is there to beg? If you are able to doubt it, then apparently it’s not absolute knowledge as you are inevitably aware of the moment you doubt it.     I’m not sure what you meant in your side note. It almost sounds like what you may have meant what I’m saying though. I’m reading it over and over again and it eludes me. “Absolute certainty”? hmmm Then “absolute certainly” does something (interesting).

Sections divided by bolded excerpts: 
(1)
You don't see them?  I'm not trying to infer some mystical difference between those two categories and any other way of dividing anything -- just that you necessarily either realize you're receiving input or you don't.  And since it seems to me that you understand and recognize that distinction, we are in agreement on that. 
     Where we part ways is that you don't seem to understand that "consciously received" doesn't mean you know WHERE it came from, just that it came from SOMEWHERE (outside of yourself).  So "not consciously received" means, conversely, that you are NOT aware that it came from outside yourself.  In fact, you may not even be aware that there was any change at all!  (e.g. if God made you swap interpretations of "purple" and "orange" without your knowledge, and you'd never notice unless you saw an object from before the swap.)  More on this later. 

(2)
I read what you wrote, but it didn't seem to concretely address the issue.  I think this is for reasons I'll be able to address in a response below.  For now I'll just say you seem to be saying, "but it's ABSOLUTE knowledge, so obviously it's absolute, QED" which is fairly obviously begging the question. 
     Actually, now that I look at your response more closely it's clear that your "revelation" is a complete sidestepping of the issue of establishing that something is absolute knowledge by saying that revealed knowledge is ipso facto absolute. 
     I still have response to this, but see (4). 

(3) "Hopefully I made it clear above that this is not my position. Although I believe I even addressed the contention, not mine, that absolute knowledge had to be accompanied by the absolute knowledge that it came from the absolute knowledge source thing 0_o. That’s not really a problem. It just says that both bits of absolute knowledge are dependent on one another and must be revealed at the same time."
     Unfortunately this will not resolve much as you say this is not your position, but I want to note that this faces exactly the same issue as my hypothetical "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so".  I.e. the one is proven by assuming the other.  THIS is begging the question beyond any shadow of a doubt.  The only way it can be "resolved" is by falling back on your revelation, which means that this is not in fact different at all from your prior answer. 

(4)  "The use of “faith” as I see it used just seems to imply that one “doesn’t really know” but he’s taking a guess at it or something lol. Well, that wouldn’t be absolute knowledge either if used in that sense. If faith is meant as in “knowledge you cannot demonstratively prove to another person” then I think you could indeed call the knowledge of revelation “faith”."
THIS IS KEY
Forget "another person".  You can't even PROVE it to yourself*.  You just "know" it without need for proof beyond the fact that you "know" it.  This is a fucking definition of faith. 
     And given that what you are calling "absolute knowledge" is faith-based, I dispute and deny in the most strenuous way imaginable that you are correct in calling it "absolute knowledge" instead of, say, "absolute faith" or "absolute belief" or "absolute certainty".**  Your feeling was correct -- this is indeed EXACTLY what I meant when I hypothesized, "you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so".  Revelation, as you describe it, does not depend on being able to somehow determine the veracity of the source -- it just makes you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of what you now believe (now that it's been revealed). 

(5)  Your absolute certainty that the knowledge is correct does not MAKE it correct (except in your opinion).  So in that sense faith-based "absolute knowledge" cannot vouch for itself in the abstract, only in your own estimation.  That is what I mean when you say you beg the question by saying (for example) "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".  It settles it FOR YOU -- but that's all. 

*Proof implies that you approach a question in order to substantiate it.  In this case there is no question, and no substantiation. 

**To be sure, the word "know" is used colloquially when it is really only an extremely well-educated guess.  example "Do you know when the train is scheduled to arrive?"  "Yes, it's 8:00, right there on the sheet."  But maybe the sheet is outdated.  He doesn't actually KNOW.  /example But I consider "absolute knowledge" to imply much more than mere certainty, especially when you say other people do not have absolute knowledge that the world really exists.  I'm sure that millions and millions of people are very absolutely certain of it.

appolose said: Final-Fan said: 1.  YES!!! YESYESYESYES!  AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FINALLY! I have a feeling this could allow for substantial progress.  Even if not, at least we've gotten somewhere.  2.  I think at this point you need to define "method" and "method of truth".  You have used the phrase "method of truth" many many times, and I do not recall you ever defining it, and I want you to now.  Probably I should have asked this some time ago.  Also:  "Other methods".  I suppose you refer to something based on revelation, correct?  (If not, then what?  Or, if "yes, but there is a third possibility", then what is that?)  Is there any input possible besides "sense data" and "revelation"?  (I leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether those two are even separate.)  And would you agree that any legitimate belief about the world must eventually hinge on some form of input? A method of truth means "a way to gain truth (aka absolute knowledge)". E.g. A man doubts his informer that says the world is flat and he wonders how he can be sure of this. A method of truth is something we're mulling over in our head (call it of the realm of analyticals or, ambiguously, the realm of ideas), it's not something we're going out to discover in the world. Rather, the world is the thing we're hoping to discover in truth through a method. Other methods of truth would be rationalism, constuctivism, "presuppositionalism" (ambiguous). I'm sure there are many many more proposed but actually I think they're all actually variations of sense data (ambiguously called "experience") and rationality. Yes, having truth is contingent upon obtaining it lol. "Input" if you will. Actually, I could certainly call sense data revelation in that sense. Again, I don't say sense data doesn't exist or has nothing to do with reality. It's the empiricist doctrine I argue against that says we can "use" sense data to gain "further information" of reality (i.e. what that sense data represents - such as any particular entity [part or whole] and what nature it may have).

Not even if the ways to "use" or interpret the sense data were revealed? 

(I wanted to drop everything for the exchange I just replied to, but that question was too tempting to not ask.)