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.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell