rathi

No, because nothing has meaning without the 3 givens. Everything we know of human existence relies upon these as truth. Without them, we have absolutely nothing.

For example, your post on this forum only matters is the givens are true. For me to read your post, I must be able to see. For me to think of a rebuttal I must remember what you typed. And to post a reply I must be able to communicate. Unless you accept the givens, your post is completely pointless and worthless. So do you accept the givens or admit that your post is meaningless?

God on the other hand, could not exist, without any repercussions. If god doesn't exist, than maybe you don't go to church on Sunday. If you can't trust your senses, you can't remember anything or you can't communicate, you have no life at all.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Felicity

And why is it that the last two posts (other than mine) have turned toward the subject of "God", eh?

(just a rhetorical question...)

Felicity

So what are you saying here? I don't understand how you do not see a contradiction in empiricism with assumptions at the core. I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand why you would say that isn't an inherent hypocrisy.

nkgupta80

What you're pointing out is very deep in that we can never be sure about reality beyond the framework we (our brains) create. Human brains have this ability for rational thought. however, once our rational thought begins to question the very nature of empiricism and reason, we begin to run in circles. I feel this contradiction obviously exists, but will probably never be explained. Kant actually discusses this in his critique of pure reason (genius work).

Panache

There is no contradiction. Empiricism is always based on assumption. Assumption is part of empiricism, and as such, "empiricism with assumptions at the core" is not hypocrisy.

Empericism is a communication tool. If we both agree on the meaning of the word "communication" it becomes useful to us.

When someone wants to see empirical evidence, it is because the position for which the empirical evidence is needed is not an assumption granted by each participant in the communicative effort. The empirical evidence can then be used to "prove" something based on the assumption of other somethings which are not up for debate because they are assumed by each participant.

Cephus

It's not impossible to demonstrate the assumptions, the only one you really need to assume is #3. How do you demonstrate the others? Ask people. Find 10 people who saw an event and ask them what they saw. Did they all report the same thing? Then you have a reasonable certainty that the event happened as it was reported. Build up enough of these certain events and you can be sure that the world operates in a certain way. The only real place this can break down is if you assume that you're just imagining everyone else and you're the only one that really exists. Of course, I never see anyone who is willing to logically explore that claim, if you really thought everyone else was an illusion, what's to stop you from just shooting everyone else you see? They aren't real anyhow. Funny how that just doesn't happen, isn't it?

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

I answered in a method of communication you have used, and I assume we both use fluently (as I have seen you do it many times). I assume it was reasonable because I used simple logic- which is how we basically define 'reason'- to communicate my thoughts through a simple define-and-explain process. You were tought to understand this process by your parents as a baby. By any definition of thought, I thought about answering- the mental meaning. I can't prove anything to you, but I think you will understand my communication and interpret my thoughts the way I want you to, which you have done by answering. This has happened thousands of times with a tiny failure rate, so by experience I consider it a rational mental process- no brain scan needed. Beyond that, you can't prove anything if the person doesn't want to accept it, and if you don't want to, you will be nitpicking at what 99.9% of the English-speaking population would consider a reasonable answer...

Whew. How's that?

__________________

Lightdemon

Perhaps you're looking for a more post-modern type answer?

__________________

A_Wise_Fool

I think I finally realized what you are talking about. I took a gander at Epistemology and it shed a lot on what you have asked. And also explained why my previous posts were not so helpful.

To begin with I think there must be a universal premise to which we make comparisons. After this everything will fall into place.

When you say prove the mental meaning of a process each definition will invariably differ due to the relative interpretation of personal experiences. A universal ideological constant possessed by all humans must exist if there is to be any universal understanding. This would be considered an innate idea, to which I'm sure you are already familiar with. I'm sure you also know that empiricism does away with the idea of innate qualities or ideas. Which leaves all meaning understood by us to assumptions, which in turn lead to circular logic problems like you said and other problems as well. However, I think there is an answer.

I believe that physical pain, a universal constant in all normal humans, presents a true innately-possessed quality. It is a chemical reaction in our brain which automatically triggers the response to stop what we just did. Species could not survive without pain. Humans learn from pain. It ultimately factors into almost every decision we can make. And eventually from pain, we derive logic. By knowing this constant we ourselves can make concurrent assumptions

Then how does this answer your questions? An randomly behaving entity will eventually tend to accomplish only one set of goals if it must conform to a constant.( If it does not conform then it just promotes randomness, I might talk about this later). When presented two variables to a problem that has one set answer, through experience, trial and error and a guiding constant it will realize which combinations of variables will achieve the desired result. For a practical example, very young children mindlessly walking around will immediately react the instance they experience pain from touching a hot stove. At first, they should think simply touching the stove equates to the constant of pain, because that is what they experienced. But then later on, perhaps though accident or curiosity, the child touches the stove again and does not get burned that time, and by chance notices the knob on the stove is turned into the off position. The child should eventually realize the changing in the boolean (~very important) "variables" of the knob's position (up OR down) and touching the stove (touching OR not touching) and thus understand how the stove works: IF the knob is up, THEN touching the stove results in pain, burning, and the more beneficial item heat. This same procedure can be applied to everything I can think of, and with guidance from parents a child can relatively quickly build up enough logical proofs to make accurate assumptions about the world. This is why babies are so curious about the world around them. They are made this way to fill up their 'little' blank slates with knowledge . Perhaps this could work with all sensory input as well, but people remember pain longer than anything else, so it would be a much stronger driving force.

The meaning behind the colors in the brain region is the brain associating input with experiences and weighing those experiences logically to what it currently desires. If variables A,B,C,D etc. are played out the way the brain has experienced them, either all together or some at a time, then the desired result should be obtained. If not obtained then the experience has changed and new assumptions about the variables must be made.


All justification for assumptions regress in some way back to pain experienced though sensory-motor interactions with the world around us. It does not take understanding of pain to realize we do not want it. We experience it, and immediately realize we do not want it. Everything leads us to believe this true of all humans.

Therefore, it must be an innate quality we can use as a constant to compare our assumptions.

Through what I have logically learned of variables pertaining to communication guided by an innate constant we possess, I assume you understand my post....

Felicity

This is a legit philosophical question. See
Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind - philosophy of mind
Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind - mind-body problem