Re: A theological view on intelligent design?

On 9 Oct 2005 17:56:26 -0700, "Richard Dudley"
<abraxalito@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>William wrote:

>> You have told me that the assumption that there is an external
>> objective world is certainly not one of your basic axioms.
>
>Yes.
>
>> You have therefore told me you are a solipsist.
>
>No, I have explained that I'm not one of those. Why don't you
>accept what I say?

I do accept what you say. A solipsist is someone who states that the
idea of an external objective world is not one of their axioms. You
have, therefore, said you are a solipsist.

>> Your world is the subjective world of the self.
>
>You've made this part up yourself, preferring to believe your own
>assumptions rather than what I say. Seems you're not taking a
>scientific view towards understanding where I'm coming from.

No. I'm accepting what you tell me. If you have not accepted the axiom
of there being an objective world external to your mind then all you
have is the subjective world of your mind.

>> What I mean by 'objective reality' is the reality that exists
>> independent of our perception and consciousness. That which exists
>> independent of the mind
>
>OK, so how do we _know_ that any reality exists independent of
>consciousness?

We (that is, pretty well everyone except you) accept it axiomatically
- ie, we take it as self evident. We cannot prove its existence.

>I agree that things exists independent of the mind -
>'mind' and 'consciousness' aren't necessarily the same thing. Perhaps
>though in your usage they're synonymous ? I'm cool with accepting that
>there's reality that exists independent of my own mind, so does that
>make me different from what you call a solipsist ?

If you are now saying you actually do accept the idea that there is an
objective reality that exists independent of your subjective mind then
I guess you were having me on when you said you didn't.

>> Chambers 20th Century Dictionary: "That which is presented to
>> consciousness (as opposed to subjective), exterior to the mind."
>
>Ah, I part company with Chambers in that I can't see the distinction
>between 'objective' and 'subjective' - what's presented _to_ the mind
>is clearly presented _by_ the mind, and hence its not exterior to the
>mind.

OK, so you were not having me on. You do not believe there is an
objective reaity exterior to your mind.

>Of course some form of reality must be exterior to the mind, I
>don't rule that out.

Uh . . ? Is this 'some form of reality' part of your mind or not? Tell
me, do I exist objectively in this 'some form of reality' or am I not
exterior to your mind?

>> It is a pre-supposition that has to be accepted axiomatically
>> because it cannot be proved without first assuming it's existence.
>
>Why are you speaking about 'proof' - I thought we were talking about
>science here. Axioms are never 'proved' to my knowledge, though feel
>free to correct me.

I've just told you that.

>I agree there's circularity here - we can first
>accept 'external reality' as a provisional axiom, and see if it leads
>to any contradictions or intractable problems, then revisit it as
>necessary. Obviously quite a bit of science can be done without
>revisiting it, but revisit it we must if we're going to make progress
>on the more difficult problems of science.

The assumption of an external objective world *cannot* be proved -
either now or retrospectively. THAT IS WHY IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED
AXIOMATICALLY. Sorry for the caps but you are trying my patience.

There is no point in going back and looking at it again - it will
still be the same; and it makes no difference whether you are doing
science or just getting out of bed in the morning.

>> Those folk, like you, who don't accept the axiom, live in a
>> subjective world of the 'self' where they do not accept the existence
>> of a world beyond their own minds.
>
>Nonsense. You're making ignorant remarks about these 'folk' because
>you've dismissed them without seeking to understand where they're
>coming from. Dismissal without examination is not one of the hallmarks
>of good science.

I have not dismissed anything. I have taken you at your word. Quit
contradicting yourself.

Get your act together, Richard. Have you accepted that there is an
external objective world, independent of your own subjective mind, or
not? If you have then you will have accepted it axiomatically. If you
haven't then I cannot talk science or anything much else with you and
I have wasted my time taking you seriously. Come back when you have
figured out where you stand.

William
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A theological view on intelligent design?
    ... > I don't construct reality. ... > the model I construct of it in my mind. ... OK, so is this one of your axioms, or not? ... are you saying you believed what you saw was a pear? ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: A theological view on intelligent design?
    ... it's not what I have been calling ... >>> 'objective' reality. ... > anyone's mind and not exterior to any mind, ... Simply accepting an axiom ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: A theological view on intelligent design?
    ... >> Reality exists independently of the model I construct of it ... It is one of about only two of our basic axioms. ... If I accept anything exterior to my mind I have ... An accurate internal model of an external reality *will* ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox
    ... >#> Because it's very easy to prove, using axioms that seem right ... this imagined scenario where they don't is impossible. ... >to have it very sharply in mind. ... But the whole point to "philosophy" is to avoid saying ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: the return of the master : tommy1729
    ... not be what Tommy has in mind. ... let me try giving some truth tables. ... The "cranks" look at their desiderata first, ... see what axioms satisfy their desiderata. ...
    (sci.math)