Engaging Mormon Apologetics

[_MrStakhanovite]

Now we are getting somewhere...

You rely on instruments (microscopes and the like) to make better observations, good. You've also stated that we don't need to perceive things directly to know about them (like atoms) because we can see and predict the effects of things that elude our direct observation.

Now how far are you willing to go on that? For example is features 1, 2, and 3 are best explained by X, and X is best explained by Y, and Y is best explained by Z... How far could these chains of inferences go before they cease to be based on perception? Infinitely?

I also think you are setting yourself up to being forced to admit humans could possibly be omniscient if all knowledge can be gained by perception. A denial of this, forces you again to admit that there are things beyond perception, which is self-defeating to the hardline empiricist.

(Brownie points to the first person who can tell me which of Dewey’s critics first made criticisms such as these, although much more dense and sophisticated in jargon!)

There are also things that truly are beyond our perception. Optical illusions are perfect examples of this. Below is the classic Rabbit/Duck picture, you could never look at that picture and see both the duck and the rabbit; it has to be one or the other. This isn’t a cognitive error, but merely the limits on how our brain works.

[_Gadianton]

Hi there mfb, Dr. Stak's patient little demonstration is rather trivial to comprehend, that you find it confusing doesn't altogether surprise me, but this doesn't at all suggest any lack of understanding or explication on his part.

It isn't irrefutable, and if you were to object I'd say that is fine, but you have no clue what he's saying?

I'll bet our new friend, the apologist Simon Belmont, would grasp Dr. Stak's point before finishing Stak's last sentence.

[_mfbukowski]

Hi there mfb, Dr. Stak's patient little demonstration is rather trivial to comprehend, that you find it confusing doesn't altogether surprise me, but this doesn't at all suggest any lack of understanding or explication on his part.

It isn't irrefutable, and if you were to object I'd say that is fine, but you have no clue what he's saying?

I'll bet our new friend, the apologist Simon Belmont, would grasp Dr. Stak's point before finishing Stak's last sentence.

You really should read the thread before replying. You have no understanding of what we are discussing.

[_mfbukowski]

Now we are getting somewhere...

You rely on instruments (microscopes and the like) to make better observations, good. You've also stated that we don't need to perceive things directly to know about them (like atoms) because we can see and predict the effects of things that elude our direct observation.

I have been saying that for pages and pages. You should be more interested in understanding what I am saying than in making points.

Now how far are you willing to go on that? For example is features 1, 2, and 3 are best explained by X, and X is best explained by Y, and Y is best explained by Z... How far could these chains of inferences go before they cease to be based on perception? Infinitely?

I don't know- that becomes a definitional issue- it depends on the language game how far you can push it.

I also think you are setting yourself up to being forced to admit humans could possibly be omniscient if all knowledge can be gained by perception. A denial of this, forces you again to admit that there are things beyond perception, which is self-defeating to the hardline empiricist.

You miss the strength of this, but you are precisely right. God is a human, and is omniscient in precisely this way. He knows everything we all are are capable of knowing. It's like Nagel's bat- bats "see" with their ears- their perception is unlike ours but it is still perception. Each perceiver makes the world more "objective" and God is the sum of all possible perceptions.

(Brownie points to the first person who can tell me which of Dewey’s critics first made criticisms such as these, although much more dense and sophisticated in jargon!)

You've been reading wikipedia again! But I am not a perfect disciple of Dewey anyway!

There are also things that truly are beyond our perception. Optical illusions are perfect examples of this. Below is the classic Rabbit/Duck picture, you could never look at that picture and see both the duck and the rabbit; it has to be one or the other. This isn’t a cognitive error, but merely the limits on how our brain works.

Not at all. It illustrates the nature of language games, just as your example above with the infinite regress does. How far do you want to push that "it's a rabbit"?

Surely you know what Wittgenstein says about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations

[_MrStakhanovite]

I have been saying that for pages and pages.

You've been saying it for threads and threads, but I wanted to restate it so there would be a clear distinction between instramentation and actual biological limits.

I don't know- that becomes a definitional issue- it depends on the language game how far you can push it.

Can you show me how far you would push it?

You miss the strength of this, but you are precisely right. God is a human, and is omniscient in precisely this way. He knows everything we all are are capable of knowing.

I figured that would appeal to Mormons :)

It's like Nagel's bat- bats "see" with their ears- their perception is unlike ours but it is still perception. Each perceiver makes the world more "objective" and God is the sum of all possible perceptions.

Do you think it is at all possible for a human to understand what it's like to perceive like a bat?

You've been reading wikipedia again!

Which part came from Wikipedia? I don't read it at all, so if you could link me, I'd appreciate it.

Not at all.

Demonstrate how it is possible for a human to see both images at the same time, using language.

[_mfbukowski]

Demonstrate how it is possible for a human to see both images at the same time, using language.

Huh?

One does not usually see with language, but I don't think it is possible to see both at the same time and never said it was.

I know- you were just testing me or repeating it or something.

[_MrStakhanovite]

No, I really reallt think you said that:

There are also things that truly are beyond our perception. Optical illusions are perfect examples of this. Below is the classic Rabbit/Duck picture, you could never look at that picture and see both the duck and the rabbit; it has to be one or the other. This isn’t a cognitive error, but merely the limits on how our brain works.

Not at all. It illustrates the nature of language games, just as your example above with the infinite regress does. How far do you want to push that "it's a rabbit"?

Surely you know what Wittgenstein says about this.

I took the "Not al all" to mean that there are not things truly beyond our perception and the "It illustrates the nature of language games, just as your example above with the infinite regress does. How far do you want to push that 'it's a rabbit'" as a rejection that the failure to see both the duck and the rabbit is not a limit of our brains but a problem of language.

If this understanding is incorrect, please correct it, because this is the only reading of what you typed that makes sense to me.

[_mfbukowski]

I took the "Not al all" to mean that there are not things truly beyond our perception and the "It illustrates the nature of language games, just as your example above with the infinite regress does. How far do you want to push that 'it's a rabbit'" as a rejection that the failure to see both the duck and the rabbit is not a limit of our brains but a problem of language.

If this understanding is incorrect, please correct it, because this is the only reading of what you typed that makes sense to me.

With all those double negatives I don't know how you can make sense of anything.

We can't see both together. It doesn't matter if you want to call that a "limit of perception" or not.

It all depends on how far you want to push the definition of "limit or perception".

Try your best to speak simply, ok? I am not very bright.

Gadianton, there is a new siggy for you. Have fun.

By the way, what does any of this have to do with how we know things?

[_MrStakhanovite]

We can't see both together.

And this is a demonstration of something that exists that we cannot perceive.

By the way, what does any of this have to do with how we know things?

An admission that our perception is limited is also an admission that there are Xs outside our perception.

[_mfbukowski]

And this is a demonstration of something that exists that we cannot perceive.

Absurd. Really definitely absurd.

What "thing" is it precisely that "exists" in this instance? We can see the rabbit. We can see the duck.

What else is there we cannot see? What is that "thing" which exists beyond the rabbit and the duck?

I cannot see the Eiffel tower from my home in California unless I am watching a live video feed either. I am not positing for one moment that the Eiffel Tower does not exist because I can't see it at this moment.

I also cannot see you if I walk out of the room you are in.

Actually that is a fairly attractive possibility at the moment.