[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 3 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious)

No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms.

you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion?

winston said:

Not being a wiseass here, but to me it seems that knowing or knowledge isn't or shouldn't be a individualized concept - learning, yes, but not knowing.

you misunderstand... by method of knowing i'm speaking of that which allows you (us) to make sense of our experiences

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 3 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious)

No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms.

you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion?

From our observations of people and other living beings, we can fairly conclude that there are many gradations of self-awareness and consciousness. I suppose that squirrels have more than birds but less than chimps.

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 04:01 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 3 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious)

No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms.

you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion?

From our observations of people and other living beings, we can fairly conclude that there are many gradations of self-awareness and consciousness. I suppose that squirrels have more than birds but less than chimps.

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

i asked for your opinion... assuming you believe that at one time there was nothing but random atoms, at some point they had to (randomly) come together to form a living being... at some other point, some living being first became self-aware... as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

[Winstonm]

Quote

you misunderstand...

Yes, frequently.

Quote

you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion?

If I can jump in here, too? This question doesn't matter to me, personally. I can understand how it might to someone else, though. The best anyone could do is offer complete speculation. But I wanted to jump in here because it is just this type of question I had in mind when I stated earlier that "it reminds me of college kids smoking dope and talking about the universe inside a shoebox in God's closet." (or close to that). I wasn't trying to put down the importance of metaphysics, but was trying to imply the unverifiability that I perceive in those studies.

I don't grasp how being internally consistent validates anything - that is how fantasy and science-fiction writers get readers to suspend disbelief and keep reading - they create worlds that have internal consistency in which their stories play out. Creating a starting point and then having a consistently valid logic argument based on the beginning point does not validate the point as correct.

Because of that, it seems to me that any metaphysically-based argument has to have a premise that begins with the word "If". Things that begin with the word 'if" cannot be proved but can only be believed or accepted on faith. Or so it seems.

But as I said above, I frequently misunderstand.

[Winstonm]

Quote

you misunderstand... by method of knowing i'm speaking of that which allows you (us) to make sense of our experiences

I understand - again I am not totally happy with the terminology. I am also not against metaphysics or logic - but I have trouble with conflicting argumentation styles where one person is arguing metaphysical and the other is offering a different perspective.

So bear with me if I am ignorant.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing.

I suspect the question is meaningless (since if one insists of some threshold above which an organism is deemed "self-aware" in an absolute sense, that threshold becomes arbitrary), but maybe one could ask how self-aware the most self-aware organism was (say) 100 million years ago, or how self-aware our common ancestor with (say) squirrels was.

The common test for self-awareness is if an animal, exposed to a mirror, realizes that if its own mirror image has a red dot on its forehead, it means the animal has a red dot on its own forehead. Orangutans and dolphins pass the test, so the obvious question is how much of this ability evolved before the split-up of their ancestral lines. That can be studied with the usual techniques of evolutionary biology.

It doesn't tell us how self-aware extinct animals were, but we can get an idea of that as we get to know more about the evolutionary advantages of self-awareness.

Winston said:

This question doesn't matter to me, personally.

Ditto.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Feb 3 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Kant was active when Euclid's postulate of unique parallels was an active topic for discussion. As I understand it, and with Kant one is never sure if one does understand it,  this became one of the Synthetic A Priori statements in his Critique of Pure Reason, meaning that it was a factual statement about the world whose truth could be deduced from proper reasoning, no experimentation required.

Maybe I misunderstand but I thought it was known long before Kant & Co. that the parallel axiom, as applied to a model for physical space, is a non-trivial assertion.

Anyway, it makes me think about your first post, about Fermat's last theorem which you say is true no matter which axioms one starts with (I suppose you have the continuum hypothesis, and the axiom of choice, in mind). I always thought of those as choices motivated by the mathematician's convenience only. Is it possible that we will one day ask a physics question which can be translated into the question of whether to "believe" in, say, the axiom of choice?

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Feb 5 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

The common test for self-awareness is if an animal, exposed to a mirror, realizes that if its own mirror image has a red dot on it, it means the animal has a red dot on its own forehead. Orangutans and dolphins pass the test, so the obvious question is how much of this ability evolved before the split-up of their ancestral lines. That can be studied with the usual techniques of evolutionary biology.

I think there is some kind of crow or raven that passes this test as well.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

so when you say that what a person believes is not the same as knowing, it's possible that you've never really thought on whether or not that's always true... for example, can you make a case for evolution that remains internally consistent (iow, that doesn't reduce to absurdity) with the rest of your view?

also, i asked for your opinion - what you believe to be true - on several topics... these opinions (beliefs?) may or may not be true - this truth itself being another component of knowledge

helene said:

The common test for self-awareness is if an animal, exposed to a mirror, realizes that if its own mirror image has a red dot on its forehead, it means the animal has a red dot on its own forehead. Orangutans and dolphins pass the test, so the obvious question is how much of this ability evolved before the split-up of their ancestral lines. That can be studied with the usual techniques of evolutionary biology.

it might can be studied using those techniques, helene, but it can't be answered that way... now it's possibly true that answers aren't necessary to all questions in a worldview (for example, even you think this one is meaningless), but for the non-theist to denigrate the belief of a theist as the answer to these and other questions seems hypocritical when the non-theist says something like "your (the theist's) view that the answer is God is simply faith, even though i (the non-theist) have no answers"

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

Not sure why you are squirming so on this one. As you well realize, I did not say anything about "*no* beliefs."

I said that believing is not the same as knowing. (That's why we use different words.)

I expect that most of us here have studied epistomology to some extent (although a math major, philosophy was one of my minors). If your view of reality equates believing and knowing, it would be the first such view I've heard of (outside of church).

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

Not sure why you are squirming so on this one. As you well realize, I did not say anything about "*no* beliefs."

I said that believing is not the same as knowing. (That's why we use different words.)

I expect that most of us here have studied epistomology to some extent (although a math major, philosophy was one of my minors). If your view of reality equates believing and knowing, it would be the first such view I've heard of (outside of church).

squirming? i'm not the one who, in post after post, steadfastly refuses to answer any question put to him... as for having no knowledge of a study of epistemology which has belief as a component (outside of church, that is), maybe you didn't take your minor as seriously as you did your major (not a criticism, merely an observation)

[Winstonm]

Trying to get a grasp on this stuff, I ran across this which seems to have created a rather large difficulty for the definitions of epistemology.

Quote

In 1963 Edmund Gettier called into question the theory of knowledge that had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of years[4]. In a few pages, Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge. That is, Gettier contended that while justified belief in a proposition is necessary for that proposition to be known, it is not sufficient. As in the diagram above, a true proposition can be believed by an individual but still not fall within the "knowledge" category (purple region).

According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases," as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge. One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job." (see [4] p.122.) These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true in virtue of luck.

This seems to conflict somewhat with this statement.

Quote

there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

I don't know for sure but belief appears to be trickable and therefore unreliable to knowledge.

Quote

for example, can you make a case for evolution that remains internally consistent (iow, that doesn't reduce to absurdity) with the rest of your view?

And a last point. This is somewhat lawyerly, but it seems to me the better exercise would be to (seriously and thoroughly) adopt a premise different than your worldview and then see if you can create a worldview that stays consistent. A good attorney can argue the case from either side - a reasonable person I would think would do the same for his own held beliefs. If two worldviews can be consistent in themselves, then neither can be eliminated as invalid.

[maggieb]

When words have no meaning
You say what you want
You simply cannot be wrong

What it lacks in rigor
We make up with vigor
Containing all beauty, so strong

We can wiggle and babble
Scribble and scrabble
Nonsense, it may seem to some

But the joke that you see
Is science to me
Oh metaphysical, here we come


Maggie B.

[Winstonm]

maggieb, on Feb 5 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

When words have no meaning
You say what you want
You simply cannot be wrong

What it lacks in rigor
We make up with vigor
Containing all beauty, so strong

We can wiggle and babble
Scribble and scrabble
Nonsense, it may seem to some

But the joke that you see
Is science to me
Oh metaphysical, here we come


Maggie B.

Exactly. And well put.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality... if your view of reality contains *no* 'beliefs' it would be the first such view i've heard of... besides, there are people who have dedicated their lives to the study of epistemology, and some (most?) of them view belief as an integral component of what it means to know

Not sure why you are squirming so on this one. As you well realize, I did not say anything about "*no* beliefs."

I said that believing is not the same as knowing. (That's why we use different words.)

I expect that most of us here have studied epistomology to some extent (although a math major, philosophy was one of my minors). If your view of reality equates believing and knowing, it would be the first such view I've heard of (outside of church).

squirming? i'm not the one who, in post after post, steadfastly refuses to answer any question put to him... as for having no knowledge of a study of epistemology which has belief as a component (outside of church, that is), maybe you didn't take your minor as seriously as you did your major (not a criticism, merely an observation)

I now regret using the word "squirming" because it has more of a negative connotation than I intended.

To be specific, I was referring to your habit of misrepresenting the posts of others and then responding to your own misrepresentation rather than to the original post. This might work in oral conversation, but is less effective when the conversation is written.

You have (as you must know) done the same thing here:

Quote

as for having no knowledge of a study of epistemology which has belief as a component (outside of church, that is), maybe you didn't take your minor as seriously as you did your major (not a criticism, merely an observation)

Nowhere did I say that belief was excluded from a study of epistemology. I simply said that believing is not the same as knowing. mikeh made that point in another thread, and I don't recall that you disagreed there.

Saying one knows something is a stronger statement than saying one believes something. You cannot know something that is unknowable, but you can believe it nevertheless. (In fact, the set of unbelieveable propositions must be pretty small, given all the different beliefs people actually hold.)

In my opinion, it's a waste of time to contemplate the unknowable -- such as when self-awareness first occurred. That's why I answered you so directly, as is my habit.

Accepting your term, I agree that we all have a "worldview." Most of us like to maintain a worldview that is consistent with reality as well as being consistent internally. If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality. A worldview that does not permit such adjustments is too brittle.

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness (I'm not saying you believe that). We can reject that worldview because it conflicts with reality, as demonstrated by experiments such as those Helene mentioned. One's worldview should be able to accomodate new information.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality

Here is where it seems some types of theists have difficulty - if the worldview cannot be altered then the evidence must be attacked.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

Nowhere did I say that belief was excluded from a study of epistemology. I simply said that believing is not the same as knowing. mikeh made that point in another thread, and I don't recall that you disagreed there.

Saying one knows something is a stronger statement than saying one believes something. You cannot know something that is unknowable, but you can believe it nevertheless. (In fact, the set of unbelieveable propositions must be pretty small, given all the different beliefs people actually hold.)

i won't quote winston's post re: gettier, since this can take care of both... you are correct that to say "i know" is different from, and stronger than, saying "i believe"... if i misread you, i apologize... i did not expand on this because i wasn't sure of your stance on belief as it relates to knowledge (this post clears it up, thanks)... what gettier leaves off, and what takes literally volumes to argue/explain, is the fact that belief must be true to count as knowledge - and that statement *greatly* understates this school of thought... as mikeh similarly said in another thread (concerning pinker), it's impossible to do justice to a whole school of thought with snippets of posts

Quote

In my opinion, it's a waste of time to contemplate the unknowable -- such as when self-awareness first occurred. That's why I answered you so directly, as is my habit.

that's fine, different subjects take on different measures of importance to different people

Quote

Accepting your term, I agree that we all have a "worldview." Most of us like to maintain a worldview that is consistent with reality as well as being consistent internally. If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality. A worldview that does not permit such adjustments is too brittle.

absolutely true

Quote

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness (I'm not saying you believe that). We can reject that worldview because it conflicts with reality, as demonstrated by experiments such as those Helene mentioned. One's worldview should be able to accomodate new information.

correct... our worldview is made up of our experiences in which we form our ideas of reality

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

Quote

If reality proves inconsistent with our worldview, we adjust our worldview to reflect the reality

Here is where it seems some types of theists have difficulty - if the worldview cannot be altered then the evidence must be attacked.

and here is where some a- and/or non-theists have difficulty - if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency, others must be attacked

winston, any of us can say "this is my worldview" and stop short of fully examining what it is they believe... it's my opinion that you have done that repeatedly by saying "i don't think metaphysics have any part in this debate" (paraphrasing) and similar things... i can account for things like ethics and morality (and many other abstracts, such as laws) from within my worldview... the materialist can't... the materialist will say things like "you can only account for those by invoking God" while saying "i might not be able to account for those things but at least i don't have to believe in God to not account for them"... hardly a convincing endorsement

[Winstonm]

Quote

and here is where some a- and/or non-theists have difficulty - if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency, others must be attacked

Sorry, but I simply don't follow this. Who is to say that their worldview reduces to absurdity?

Quote

winston, any of us can say "this is my worldview" and stop short of fully examining what it is they believe... it's my opinion that you have done that repeatedly by saying "i don't think metaphysics have any part in this debate" (paraphrasing) and similar things...

I do not necessarily argue this point - you could well be right.

Quote

i can account for things like ethics and morality (and many other abstracts, such as laws) from within my worldview... the materialist can't...

You obviously have great knowledge in the area of metaphysics where I certainly do not - but again simply the wording throws me off. "I can account for things like ethics - materialists can't".

I don't think that is accurate. I think that the method that materialists use doesn't make sense to you - as a metaphysical explanation doesn't make sense to others.
It doesn't mean the materialist can't - but perhaps it is true he cannot do so to your satisfaction.

Quote

the materialist will say things like "you can only account for those by invoking God" while saying "i might not be able to account for those things but at least i don't have to believe in God to not account for them"... hardly a convincing endorsement

You are right, there. I don't see either argument at all convincing.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness

hmmmm ... I thought "worldview" was a rather big word. Should such details be included in a "worldview"? Who cares if mice are self-aware? Heck, ethology is a hobby of mine and I can get excited about many ethological issues, but this one leaves me cold. But maybe that's just me.