[net.religion] Rigorous Mortis

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)

> Rich is trying to find an objective way of measuring whether or not I am
> hungry. [LAURA]

>>If I was really seeking serious proof that you were hungry, I could certainly
>>find an objective way of verifying it.  Of course, it would take a lot of
>>data.
>>It would take an analysis of the current state of your digestive system,
>>knowledge of how long it's been since you last ate (sometimes the brain simply
>>wants food as a sensation experience without actually being hungry), and
>>data on the break points at which your body sends messages that your require
>>food. 

> This is a good try, 

Better than a good try, it provides the answer.

> but remember that I promised to be as unfuriating as
> possible. So I say that I am hungry. You get out your measuring aparatus and
> say ``how can you be hungry? you just ate a huge dinner two hours ago!''. I
> say ``no, your equipment is malfunctioning.'' You go off an test your
> equpiment and report that it is working fine. I say ``well, it can't be: you
> see there is this evil plot to starve me to death -- all equipment will fail
> to measure whether or not I am hungry because that is the way that this plot
> works.'' ``But you *just* ate dinner!'' ``Pure illusion and deception
> implanted in your mind. You can't underestimate the damager-god (oops, wrong
> article!) after all''.

And, given the evidence against you, I'd be right in concluding that you were
deluded, that perhaps there was other chemical imbalance in your body that
made it appear to you that you were hungry, or that you WERE simply being
your typical infuriating self. :-)

> And so it goes. At some point you will be forced to choose to believe me or
> to believe your equipment.  If all the objective evidence that you can
> garner points to the fact that I am not hungry then  it will be most
> reasonable for you to assume that I am lying.  But in making that assumption 
> you are implicitly professing a belief in objective reality. But how can
> you defend that belief without saying either that it is self-evident or
> that it is possible to construct a consistent set of beliefs while using this
> belief which is also consistent with the evidence of your senses?

Precisely because it is verifiable, the testing has been rigorous, and it
falls in line with other evidence and data we have about the universe.  Either
it's ALL as we see it, or it's ALL an "illusion" or a "simulation".  But what
does such a statement mean?  What is the difference between a simulation and
the "real thing" inside the system (as we are)?

>>By definition, you are saying, it is only to be called knowledge if it is
>>certain to be true. 

> No. By definition knowledge is true. no claims are made on whether or not
> this is certain, though!  The verification is your problem, and there are
> true statements which are impossible to verify. (try verifying ``Alexander
> the Great had 12 illegitimate children'' and ``there is an objective reality''
> now. You run into snags).

The only reason the first is "unverifiable" is lack of access to the facts.
Who's to say we cannot ever obtain such access?

>>At bottom level, true knowledge IS self-evident,
>>representing a consistently accurate model of the world.  Subjective beliefs,
>>very often, do not stand up to that scrutiny, and are not "self-evident"
>>at bottom level, but rather self-contradictory.

> That is immaterial to the discussion at hand -- if there are any subjective
> beliefs that stand up to that scrutiny then those are the ones that I want
> to deal with.

What is it mean for them to "stand up to the scrutiny"?  It simply means to
be verified.  Only those which are verified are true.  The rest may or may not
be true, but given the lack of evidence for them they can be dismissed.  By
saying "those are the ones that I want to deal with", you have made my point
for me:  only that which does stand up can be called knowledge or fact.  On
the contrary, it is FUNDAMENTAL to the discussion at hand.

> If you say that bottom-level true knowledge is self-evident,
> then you are making a statement of belief. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT IS TRUE?
> Ihave long believed that consistency *is* truth -- that is when you say that
> X is true you could just as well have said that X is consistent with all
> available evidence.  But this is  belief -- and definitely not shared by
> everyone.

Consistency represents truth because it simply means that the words and ideas
we use to describe things consistently match up to reality.

>>> But those things that are self-evident are true in a way that is verified
>>> differently than those things which are objectively true.

>>Not at all.  If you get to the bottom level, they are verified in exactly
>>the same way.  Often, we choose not to go to the root level, and assume
>>the veracity of certain things, owing to the tediousness of a redundancy
>>we feel is not worthwhile in every case.  That of course leaves us very
>>open to being out and out wrong.

> I don't think that this is the case. I don't think that I verify ``there
> is an objective reality and it is not all an illusion produced by the
> damager-god'' at all -- I either believe it or I do not because I think
> that it is self-evident or it is not. I actually think that I determine
> whether or not I am hungry the same way, but I could be wrong about that
> one.

And I think I've proven that indeed you are.  In any case, can you describe
the different way in which these different things are "verified", and can you
show the reliability of that verification procedure.  If you can't, then
beliefs "verified" in that way haven't got a leg to stand on.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/29/85)

Rich, I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.  This is not
a very involved or complicated point I am trying to make. I will give it
another shot...

If you want to determine whether or not I am hungry you look for objective
evidence of my hunger or lack of hunger.  Okay -- that is your method. Now
since you happened to use this method rather than (for instance) casting
the I Ching or praying to God, I must conclude that you have more faith
in this method than either of those others.  Now, since I am playing the role
of the skeptic, my next question is, ``what evidence do you have that this
method, when applied, yeilds truth?''.  In other words -- why are you an
objectivist?

It should come as no surprise to you that I am also an objectivist, so I can
answer this question as I would with out trouble.  However, the first time
I answered this question I ran into a good deal of trouble.  How do I know 
that all the evidence of my senses are not an elabourate illusion put on
for the express purpose of deceiving me?  The answer I got then, and that
I still get when I look at it is ``I don't.''  I do have a very basic and
fundamental belief that there is an objective reality, though I may have
doubts about its nature all the time.

But this is an example of an unverifiable truth.  I cannot get to a meta-level
to verufy this belief. I am stuck with leaving it as a belief, albeit one that
I hold very strongly and do not question very often.  I fail to see why you
are not in the same boat.

-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa