Why I am an athiest

@Olivier5,

You haven't been paying attention, have you? I, like the Pyrrhonists, suspect any metaphysical claim that exceeds direct experience and necessary inference. I do this as an experiment, an exploration. Not because I believe in it, but because it looks interesting.

Again, when I say that I doubt something, it doesn't mean that I claim something isn't true. It means that I neither believe nor disbelieve it, but instead investigate it. What's so hard about that concept?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
So you're determined to ignore what scholars say and stick doggedly to your straw man fallacy?

What fallacy is that?

You have somehow taken what I have said and transformed it into something unrecognizable, viz, "thoughts don't exist." Then you beat up that straw man as if it were my idea, which it never was.

Quote:

The work of scholars is like the work of priests, for somebody like you who does not believe in science or reason or anything... Why do you quote them so much if you don't believe anything they say?

I've stated very clearly that I neither believe nor disbelieve what they say; I only use their examples to show how your dogmatic assumptions can be questioned by reasonable, disciplined and educated thinkers. Please read my posts more carefully.

Quote:

I am personally very interested in neuroscience and have listened to that interview you linked to. But why someone like YOU would be interested in science beats me.

Who is someone like me? What assumptions are you imposing on who I am, based on a few internet posts?

Quote:

I still don't know why this topic has (apparently) upset you so. I don't think I was being overly aggressive to you, but there seems to be an edge of hostility and/or derision in your posts, so I'm fine with dropping it.

Quote:

I am not angry. Opinionated is a better term. I just find your philosophy a bit sad, contradictory, and a tiny bit hypocritical. It strikes me as more of a posture than the result of a real thought process. But then, you don't believe in real thought processes so I suppose that at least is coherent.

I agree with your assertion that you are opinionated. But where did I ever claim that I didn't believe in real thought processes? That's a conclusion that you apparently jumped to, probably because you're more interested in winning an internet argument than paying attention to that argument.

Quote:

As I usually say to my chess opponents: "you can abandon at any time"... :-)

This seems to be a battle of egos with you. The internet is full of them. I'd rather collaborate and investigate with people who are interested in helping each other, rather than defeating each other. If you have blind faith in something that makes you feel good, I don't care, as long as you're not hurting me or society in general. If you're not capable of a mutually respectful dialog, then I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone who simply can't stand to lose an argument and will twist words without respect for the original content. Life is too short for penis-measuring contests.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I, like the Pyrrhonists, suspect any metaphysical claim that exceeds direct experience and necessary inference. I do this as an experiment, an exploration. Not because I believe in it, but because it looks interesting.
Again, when I say that I doubt something, it doesn't mean that I claim something isn't true. It means that I neither believe nor disbelieve it, but instead investigate it. What's so hard about that concept?

Nothing particularly hard but you must admit it makes for strange discussions... Something like asymmetrical warfare.

Beside I think you go beyond your Pyrrhonists premise. For instance, the claim that conscience exists is based on everybody's most intimate and central existential experience...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Have I ever denied first-hand experience? The existence of consciousness? What's the problem? Where have I exceeded Pyrrhonist discipline?

3 Replies

@FBM,

No, but you posted other peoples beliefs on the subject that by inference tells us your posting of it means you also believe in it.

You never denied it or questioned it.

You've heard of "chicken little?"

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Have I ever denied first-hand experience? The existence of consciousness?

Fine. It's a bit hard to follow. Did you understand my paradox? This was the only thing I was really trying to get across.

May I ask, what makes you think I am dogmatic? I am also curious about what you call "exploration". How would you describe that?

1 Reply

@FBM,

You wrote, @Olivier5,

Quote:

So you're determined to ignore what scholars say and stick doggedly to your straw man fallacy? No problem.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

FBM @ Olivier5: So you're determined to ignore what scholars say and stick doggedly to your straw man fallacy? No problem.

Let me clarify that I personally agree with both the links and video FBM posted.

The video on the mind-body problem, in particular, offers an elloquent, concise (and so precise that it's uncanny) description of my own point of view on the question. John Searle is brilliant and I should have thanked FBM for the link rather than rebuke him.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Since you have shown interest in the video and agree with its content, I just had to see/listen to it too! I also agree with the opinions expressed - hammer or no hammer. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The takeaway for me is that it's mind over body. The causal level is the thought level, not the neuronal level.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, but you posted other peoples beliefs on the subject that by inference tells us your posting of it means you also believe in it.

You never denied it or questioned it.

You've heard of "chicken little?"

You didn't see the disclaimer in that post? You don't think it's a bit presumptuous to tell me what I believe when you have no access to what goes on in my head other than what I write here, which denies what you say I believe?

1 Reply

@FBM,

No, I didn't see any disclaimer from "you" on that post.
No presumptions on my part. When anybody posts a "scientific" article which expresses an opinion, the reader "assumes" the poster agrees with the content - unless the person directly disclaims or questions it.

I am not a mind-reader; it's up to the poster to make it clear if they disagree with something they post.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Have I ever denied first-hand experience? The existence of consciousness?

Fine. It's a bit hard to follow. Did you understand my paradox? This was the only thing I was really trying to get across.

May I ask, what makes you think I am dogmatic? I am also curious about what you call "exploration". How would you describe that?

Yes, I did understand your paradox and don't disagree with it, when it's applied to the appropriate situation. But this isn't one of them.

I use the word "dogmatic" in the sense that a skeptic philosopher would. It just means that you have a truth claim or belief (that it's impossible to not have beliefs) that you adhere to in debates.

Exploration in the sense of self-experimentation, something along the lines of William James. Pyrrhonism is described as a practical philosophy, rather than a doctrinal one. As far as I can tell, the only way to find out for sure whether or not it works (to achieve ataraxia, which is its goal) is to try it out for oneself.

Since I decided to experiment with it, I've actively identified as many beliefs as I can and proposed counter-arguments in order to show myself that the arguments against that belief have equipollence. Once that's done, I just drop it. I no longer believe A, but neither do I believe ~A.

Earlier in this thread, I said that the self can be doubted and you went from that statement to thinking that I meant I believed that there is no self. But that's not what I said.

I hope this clears things up. I really don't like arguing in a hostile way. I like arguing the way I learned in Philosophy classes. Point, counter-point, but dispassionately. If a flaw is found in one's argument, one just acknowledges it, corrects it and moves on. An attack on an argument is not made as an attack on the person making it.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The takeaway for me is that it's mind over body. The causal level is the thought level, not the neuronal level.

In the video, Searle was emphatic that he thinks the mind/body duality is false. Do you part ways with him on that point?

1 Reply

@FBM,

I'll even preserve the typo:

FBM wrote:

Yeah, I saw that, but who besides you is making that statement? It looks like a straw man as well as a non sequitur. Have any scientists said that thoughts don't exist? Have I? Are you equating/conflating "real, independent, free thought" with all thought?

Here's an informed perspective, but please don't assume that by posting it I am necessarily agree with every statement or detail:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XTDLq34M18[/youtube]

By attributing thought to causality, he is not denying that thoughts exist. I'm not sure how you derived that from anything I've written.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Yes, I agree you said,

Quote:

Here's an informed perspective, but please don't assume that by posting it I am necessarily agree with every statement or detail:

What are "every statement or detail?" Seems to me there is only one perspective in the way he describes his biology and thought process.

Tell me what other message he has conveyed in that video.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I agree you said,
Quote:
Here's an informed perspective, but please don't assume that by posting it I am necessarily agree with every statement or detail:

What are "every statement or detail?" Seems to me there is only one perspective in the way he describes his biology and thought process.

Tell me what other message he has conveyed in that video.

You're jumping from "statement and detail" to "perspective." I structured that sentence carefully.

A: "Here is a perspective. I may not agree with every detail."
B: "You obviously believe in his perspective."

I don't see the logical necessity of B.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Yes, I did understand your paradox and don't disagree with it, when it's applied to the appropriate situation. But this isn't one of them. [...]

Since I decided to experiment with it, I've actively identified as many beliefs as I can and proposed counter-arguments in order to show myself that the arguments against that belief have equipollence. Once that's done, I just drop it. I no longer believe A, but neither do I believe ~A.

Earlier in this thread, I said that the self can be doubted and you went from that statement to thinking that I meant I believed that there is no self. But that's not what I said.

Clarification well taken, and well done.

My point all along has been that conscience and self are non-negotiable. They are indeed not beliefs, there are where all the facts point us to. Our sense of self is a fact. Any opposite argument is a pure "what-if" scenario based on absolutely no facts whatsoever, and self-contadictory. The rival scenario to what our experience tells us is the case, just doesn't hold water. You jettisoned these beliefs incorrectly. You should have promoted them to the status of facts.

1 Reply

@FBM,

That's not logic. The wording is already on record.

I asked a simple question,

Quote:

What are "every statement or detail?" as it pertains to that video?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Yes, I did understand your paradox and don't disagree with it, when it's applied to the appropriate situation. But this isn't one of them. [...]

Since I decided to experiment with it, I've actively identified as many beliefs as I can and proposed counter-arguments in order to show myself that the arguments against that belief have equipollence. Once that's done, I just drop it. I no longer believe A, but neither do I believe ~A.

Earlier in this thread, I said that the self can be doubted and you went from that statement to thinking that I meant I believed that there is no self. But that's not what I said.

Clarification well taken, and well done.

My point all along has been that conscience and self are non-negotiable. They are indeed not beliefs, there are where all the facts point us to. Our sense of self is a fact. Any opposite argument is a pure "what-if" scenario based on absolutely no facts whatsoever, and self-contadictory. The rival scenario to what our experience tells us is the case, just doesn't hold water. You jettisoned these beliefs incorrectly. You should have promoted them to the status of facts.

First of all, thank you for looking at my statements again. I'll try to explain how and why I jettisoned those beliefs.

The Pyrrhonist approach doesn't deny any direct experience and allows some limited necessary inference as "rules of thumb" in order to navigate daily life normally. A practicing Pyrrhonist would acknowledge the experience, but carefully refrain from making any metaphysical claims about that experience that do not qualify as necessary inference.

For example, I experience a sense of self, so I don't doubt it. However, to go from that sense of a self to the existence of a self goes beyond necessary inference. If you examine what is observable about a human being, you get its constituent parts and behavior. I can't find anything in this body or behavior that is my identity, or self, in the sense that I can accurately say that this self was born and has remained identical (strict use of the word, having the same identity) since then. That sort of self seems more like a soul or ghost in the machine, neither of which have I experienced.

Therefore, the sense of self may or may not have a referent, a "true" self. The sense is compelling and respond to it normally, but without taking the logically and empirically unfounded step of declaring the existence of the self. Until new experience is available, I will treat the self as a convention, which is tentative. That's it. Daily life stays the same, I don't turn into a zombie or anarchist. Wink

1 Reply

Why I am an athiest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know