Scientist retract 50 year old paper

Quote from stu:

Right, so the thought (mental experience) is real. The thing which exists in this case is a thought . You use logic or material evidence to substantiate the truth of that.

No need to. Substantiation would be redundant. You already know that your mental experience is real because you experience it.

However, the thing in the thought, doesn't necessarily exist.

Right

So how you going to check if it does? With another thought as insubstantial as the one that thought of it, but couldn't access the truth of its existence?. Or with logic or material evidence,

You're going to check out the correspondence of the thought of the thing with the existence outside yourself of the thing through logic and material evidence but there's no need to prove to yourself the existence of your thought.

..which showed you it can substantiate the truth that a thought exists .

No. I'm saying that you can't substantiate the truth "that a thought exists" except in the most general terms and if the thought is your own there's no need to substantiate it. An EEG device might indicate that thinking is taking place but it can't investigate the specifics of that thinking. Only you can know the true nature of your thinking.

You determine the truth of this...how? With another thought of the same quality that established the concept of a nine-million ton chicken ? That would hardly be reliable

If you're determining the truth that the thoughts of another exist you have a problem; you determine the existence of your own thoughts by experiencing them.

But the chicken doesn't exist you say.. Much in the same way a thought about " the door to a universe of truth other than that which can be supported by logic or material evidence. " doesn't exist?

The chicken and the door lack existence to different degrees. While the concept of the chicken exists, the chicken itself is completely non-existent in all senses; the door is non-existent in a physical sense but has existence outside the self as a linguistic device - namely a metaphor - and as such is a transportable entity ( more than one person can use the same metaphor ).

Thoughts exist, things in thoughts , not necessarily. You need to add something to help see if those things in thoughts are true.
Would you not be better off using some logic or material evidence at this (and every other) point?

At every point except the the point of experience of your own thought. But the correspondence of the thought with the thing thought of sometimes can be verified using logic and material evidence and sometimes cannot.

More...

Hans
(formerly Heidegger)
 
Quote from pattersb:
well, as a rationalist, you should be able to find value in faith, rather than an eagerness to destroy it, and prove its falsity and worthlessness.
More...
I would suggest a little even handedness on your part as a religionist wouldn't go amiss. Understanding how superstition based belief isn't particularly worthy as a claim of value might be a good start.
Quote from pattersb:

even "the men of reason" have a leap of faith from time to time, except of course those who are already suffocated by their beliefs.
More...
49% leap of faith 51% skepticism / reasoning
49% skepticism 51% leap of faith / suffocating belief.
 
Quote from Supermax:

what did ayn rand say that is so wrong ? :confused:
More...

Wasn't implying that Rand was wrong. Just that some of these posts sound like they are coming straight from her mouth. Just an observation, not a criticism.
 
Quote from heidegger:

I have a question:

Is the only truth that is 'the truth' that truth that is accessible through 'logical proof or material evidence'?
More...

I have no desire to debate the nature of truth with mystics (and I don't even know if you're one of them). I was simply pointing out the fact that the word 'faith' was misued in the post I quoted.

For the faithful, truth is received. To the men of reason, truth is not received. It must be sought out.
 
Quote from Cache Landing:

Sounds like we've got a couple Ayn Rand fans in here.
More...

Yes, probably true. I personally don't agree with everything she said, but there is a hell of a lot in there that resonates for a me
 
Quote from pattersb:

well, as a rationalist, you should be able to find value in faith, rather than an eagerness to destroy it, and prove its falsity and worthlessness.

even "the men of reason" have a leap of faith from time to time, except of course those who are already suffocated by their beliefs.
More...

Yes, you ably demonstrate the difference between the two usages of the word. It is the blind adherence to a received truth that is the objectionable demonstration of faith. For an entreprenuer to have faith that he will succeed by virtue of the exercise of his mind and body is another thing altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top