No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Ok, let me try to explain.

If a position's merit in contingient on the skeptics accepting it then you set a standard in which all positions can claim merit on the same ticket.

For example, a lunatic can claim that others who do not believe that there are ghosts everywhere are simply incapable of such "understanding".

Your criteria seems to be one that is unfairly skewed to acceptance of your position.

How can I demonstrate to you that I understand your position but merely disagree with it? If you can come up with a way I will try to help you.

But I do not think understanding is the issue. I understand your position very well and think it lacks merit.

In attempting to elicit support from you three of your position we are met simply by the same ole, same ole.

We are told that we do not "understand" you (as opposed to simply disagreeing with you). This is a very common and very cheap tactic in discussion, "understand" becomes a euphemism for "agree with me".

We are told that we have an "agressive" and obdurate refusal to see things your way. This is unfortunate because it is serving as an excuse for the inability to support the position.

We are told that we must somehow get over our "inadequate" positions while youa re not able to demonstrate said inadequacy without using circular arguments that rely on it. This is kinda like saying "the black position is inadequate" and when pressed to support said claim saying "well, if you were white you'd be able to see your inadequacy".

We are told that when logical errors are found in your position that your position transcends logic much in the same way that religious people think their gods transcend logic. This is particularly harmful to critical thinking because no other basis for the position is forwardded that can be held up to any scientific scrutiny.

When fallacy is alledged in your positions we are told that truth is "negotiable". Thereby being issued a truism whose own negotiability is set out of bounds (kinda like a diety).

And when all else fails defense of the position takes refuge in the ambiguity of language ("it transcends language") and the name-dropping. It is assumed that said names and their works have not been perused in what is just a variation on the "understand as a euphemism for 'agree with me'" argument.

The reason this is intellectually unacceptable is because of the standards it sets for any position to have merit.

Using *only* the intellectually dishonest forms of argument in this thread, I can argue about dwarfy, the god of all flesh, and his existence just as well, hereby illustrating that no matter how absurd the position it can find similar refuge in such tactics if they are to be accepted.

Ignoring burden of proof, logic, language, and veracity makes for a situation in which there's little to "understand" except the repeated ipse dixits are supposed to be accepted through faith.

truth
So you have decided to just keep up with the same old same old.I asked you to give some evidence that you do understand the non-dualist position and you just continue to attack our efforts, because they do not comply with the rules of procedure (burden of proof, logic, language and veracity--whatever that means). You call our efforts "intellectually dishonest." What can we say? Our efforts to talk about the epistemological limitations of dualism becomes something to be scientifically "proven" (???). You are clearly not trying to understand us. You want us to prove something to you, and you make no effort to open up and listen to what it is for which you require proof. I'm sorry to inform you that there is such a thing as insight and subjective truth. This is a realm wherein the tools of inquiry we ordinarily use in scientific and sometimes, but less often, in philosophical inquiry are not the only way to understanding.

Craven: Consider my hat doffed to you. I think your post pretty much sums it all up, and obviates any need for me to comment further in this increasingly uninteresting thread.

Here's my philosophy:

Words to Live by



Life is not meant to be a journey to the grave with the intention
of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --
WOW -- What a Ride!

truth
C.I.., that's essentially why I like to be good and tired when I go to bed at night, "used up" for the day.

JLN,

Thanks for that reply. What surprises me is not the terriers with their teeth in our legs but the apparent lack of awareness of the generally accepted nature of aspects our position. Whole conferences of celebrated academics spend time and money delving into these issues, and some philosophy departments (e.g. U. Arizona) are largely dedicated to them.

Re: truth


My response was to ask what evidence you would like. I understand the position very well, but I think that short of agreeing with it or commenting on it positively you will label it as not "understanding". Most of the time "understanding" is used on this thread it is a euphemism for "share my position".



JL, you simply label criticism as an "attack". I've not employed your tactics which is to simply label people Yahoos and the like. I simply criticize the arguments for damn good reason. That you do not like criticism is both understandable and unfortunate but you certainly don't spare it (and I don't think you should) and those who you've criticized herein take it with a lot more grace.

The reason that I criticize the sophomoric level of intellect displayed here is that without said checks and balances any absurd position can be called meritous.

And I do not for a minute believe that you do not understand and agree with this on some level.



Indeed, this is because they are. They are an intellectual level that gives birth to dwarfy the god of all flesh because of disregard for the fundamentals of critical thinking.

Any absurdity can claim validity using the criteria through which you've forwarded your position and this is an intellectually dishonest reduction of critical thought.



No, your assertions of truisms needs to meet burden of proof. Especially because you like to denigrate those who do not share your position.



False. Again the bald lie that I do not understand you. I understand you perfectly but disagree with you. You, in turn, like to simply label it an inability to understand in a tired old charge that is offered in lieu of any attempt to actually support your position in the face of the disagreement, not lack of understanding, that it is met with.



This is a baseless claim JL. I am perfectly willing to listen to you. I am listening to you and responding throughout this thread. What you want is something far different. You want me to listen and not criticize the intellectually dishonest ratiocination.

This is another lie. "Listen" and "understand" are deceitfully used as euphemisms for "withold criticism of me" and "agree with me".



I've never disputed that. What I have disputed was whether or not you are avocating such a creature of whether you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty and evasion of the rigours of critical thinking.



Dwarfy lives in that realm. And the only way to differentiate valid positions from idiotic constructs like dwarfy is to employ the fundamentals of critical thinking and avoid the facile claim that your position is somehow above reason and above logic.



Where is this lack of awareness? This is yet another baseless claim to avoid **gasp** the ability to actually support the position.

It's also a logical fallacy called an argumentum ad populum. So what do you say? Well you transcend logic of course.



Just as they do in search for intelligent aliens.

This argumentum ad populum speaks nothing about the validity of the position as it is not at all uncommon for said populum to embrace idiocy en masse.

This type of argument is the intellectual equivalent of "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong".

But yes yes, I know. This transcends logic.

It's too facile a cop out and too cheap an abandonment of intellect and one that I'd not have expected from fresco or JL before this thread.



It's sad that philosophy herein is reduced from rigorous thought to a sycophantic poetry club but I agree, it's pointless to argue with a position that has abandoned logic.

Forget all the posturing.

Craven - can you answer this simple question ?

If "logical thought" is one outcome of a biological or evolutionary process which gives adult homo sapiens a relative species "advantage", can "logic" itself be utilized in the "explanation" of such a process ?

From my personal experience and observation, logic does not drive our species in any way shape or form.

Your posturing is comical enough that it will be hard to forget but I'll make a "best effort" to do so.



I certainly can, even if it is a loaded question that assumes your position being right.



This is yet another fallacy (in your series of fallacies) called a loaded question. Logic is not an outcome of the evolutionary process any more so than mathematics is. Only our ability to use it is.

By your reasoning, your brain is the outcome of the evolutionary process so it too should not be paid any heed in regard to the "explanation" of the process.

This is some of the most absurd thinking I've seen, and is a perfect example of why I level the charge of willful intellectual bankrupcy in the face of such poor sophomoric arguments.

"There are many different logics, and not just a single logic. This means that no single logic is strong enough to support the total construction of human knowledge. But it also means that, when all the different logics are taken together, they are not sufficiently coherent with one another to serve as the foundation for human knowledge. Any one logic, then, is too weak, but all the logics taken together are too rich to enable logic to form a single value basis for knowledge....
....In genetic epistemology, as in developmental psychology, too, there is never an absolute beginning. We can never get back to the point where we can say, "Here is the very beginning of logical structures." As soon as we start talking about the general coordination of actions, we are going to find ourselves, of course, going even further back into the area of biology. We immediately get into the realm of the coordinations within the nervous system and the neuron network, as discussed by McCulloch and Pitts. And then, if we look for the roots of the logic of the nervous system as discussed by these workers, we have to go back a step further. We find more basic organic coordinations. If we go further still into the realm of comparative biology, we find structures of inclusion ordering correspondence everywhere. I do not intend to go into biology; I just want to carry this regressive analysis back to its beginnings in psychology and to emphasise again that the formation of logical and mathematical structures in human thinking cannot be explained by language alone, but has its roots in the general coordination of actions."

Jean Piaget 1968 (ex Sophomore)

fresco,

Piaget's text there does absolutely nothing to lend validation to your own lacking logic and your reliance on logical fallacy.

But that being said, that text is idiotic drivel. Care to discuss it?

Find me someone qualified an I will !

Find me someone qualified and I will !

fresco, I can't help your feeling of inadequate qualifications but am prepared to help you anyway.

fresco wrote:

fresco, I think your first sentence is out of balance. Understanding is an "interaction"; it is not all interpretation, and as such I always bear some responsibility for the degree of how my intended meaning is interpreted. Meaning, as I know you know , in my utterances I lay particular path which orients and/or begs for a certain interpretation.

If we each took responsibility for the others understanding of our position it would probably facilitate said understanding. But I don't think, on this thread it is the case that understanding is agreeing (I used to tell that to the Jehovah Witnesses that come to my door occasionally, and I think I was right then, ), as Craven has repeatedly stated conveniently over looking and misquoting JLNobody.

I think I can certainly understand someone but completely disagree with them. But these threads go so fast that points and counter points get buried in ad hominem and further points and we lose touch often with what someone is trying to say in the process of putting forward our own utterances; we are poor listeners.

I think if there was any effort put into going over a few key points it would come to light that Craven's attack of speaking philoso-babble and "feigning depth" in the use of certain words/terms is off mark, although often times I can see how those perceptions have been fostered, (e.g. by laying the burden of understanding on others) which of course I/we bear some responsibility for.


I cannot disagree or agree with someone that I don't understand.

truth
Craven, I feel that I am not talking with a philosopher but with a debater, pure and simple. Your method of breaking up our posts into portions to be addressed out of context is clearly a debate strategy, as is your truly unpleasant method of transforming my use of terms such as "understanding" into "agreeing," "attack" (clearly justified by your language) into "criticism'. You say that I denigrate those who do not share my position. Am I crazy for having the clear conviction that this is not so, and that that charge clearly describes the interaction style you and Joe have taken?
Very frankly, I have enjoyed your contributions elsewhere. You are a clever person, but for reasons I cannot fathom you have chosen to unleash an aggressive attack (referring to your style not your disagreement) on a position that Fresco, Tywvel and I have advanced not aggressively or rudely, but with considerable patience and effort.

Re: truth


I don't think you are much of a philosopher either. But I don't think that ad hominem has any bearing on the validity of your claims.



Your method of lying is simple dishonesty. I break them up to address salient points and you are lying yet again and this time about my intentions.




JL, you criticize and call people names, paronize them, lie about them and call them Yahoos and the like and then try to get on a high horse? Pull the beam out of your eye.



Not crazy, just dishonest and not true to yourself. You denigrate others here all the time, ascribing their rejection of your position to naivete and inability when they disagree with you. You call them Yahoos and more.

So, in summary, it's simply deceitful for you to claim to not have denigrated those who do not share your position.



JL, I'm weary of this routine. You call people names and yet decide that you are somehow this patient rock of serenity in the face of an attack.

You simply label your "attacks" as patience and your opponents are "attacking" you.

Edited to be less "cruel" while still managing to say the same things.

I understand you perfectly. That I think your positions are almost always sheer idiocy is why you like to label it as misunderstanding. This is understandable, because it is likely more compelling for you to believe that others simply don't understand you as opposed to understanding you perfectly and thinking your position is absurd.

Even fresco and JL do a far better job, I have to give them that.

Hmmmmmm.
I think a quick trip to the library for some physics texts is in order for some people.
That should clear up at least some of the irrelevant verbiage currently being bandied about.