@Wodjul said in #28:
> But I find many people simply argue from belief. If they believe something it is ipso facto true (to them). They start from an a priori belief and assume its plain obviousness and absolute truth. For sure, my theory is just a theory and it has its own a prioris (initial assumptions) but it is an attempt to place such ideas in the scientific arena where empirical testing may become possible. To simply assume what you believe - from personal feeling and cultural inculcation - is true, is not the path to new discoveries. Of course, the path to new discoveries might be dangerous. But to be true to my theory, I would have to argue that people don't have free will in the whole matter anyway. It is evolution which makes the choices and that is not an exercise of free will either. But it is an exercise in myriad random walks across the fitness landscape where at least one walk might find a higher peak on the fitness landscape.
>
> A paradox arises for sure. I hold that humans are programmed. First, programmed by genetics and epigenetics and then programmed by enculturation (being brought up in a culture). Yet at the same time, I would wish that we could change our programming for the better. Changing our programming would in a sense be an action of meta-will. We cannot perform except as per our programming but can we change our programming? The only way out of this paradox that I can see is to posit evolution as the possible way forward. It is clear that humans entertain many illusions and incomplete models about themselves and their world, Human survival is not least a competition of illusions. Which illusions or incomplete models paradoxically turn out to be useful for survival? Which illusions turn out to lead humans to death and non-reproduction? Again, we cannot project but evolution can and will select.
Now I want to address the rest of your words:
A) Indeed, people in such cases often speak out of beliefs, but I think this is not only understandable but also required. As I wrote above, these issues are at the root of our cognition, you too will agree that it will be difficult for you to deal with the argument of the idler and a moral argument of "evolution says that this is what will make us exist and therefore even though man is not guilty he should be punished" is not only paradoxical but also like it as a religion, And that your very indignation at people's "choice" to talk about faith is paradoxical.
(Which is pretty much what I argued before, the claim that the "truth" is that there is no choice: comes from choice! And you attribute this understanding to yourself and want credit for it and it's nothing more than a horrible chain of oxymorons! The "thought" underlying the cogito is based on choice.)
And in addition, a camera cannot photograph itself and therefore to go to beliefs in this context is an epistemic statement according to which science cannot examine itself, for that there is a philosophy of science. And philosophy cannot understand choice because, as mentioned, choice is one of the observer's tools, just as the camera cannot photograph itself and logic cannot prove itself logically, etc., the existence of choice is axiomatic and the question is not "is it" but "how is it". And within this question there are categories that are also a fruitless oxymoronic attempt of thought to understand itself and there we also need beliefs. And the philosophical discussion about choice and desire is only in fairly limited areas.
(And the refutation of the ability to understand things in a way that is not experimental or philosophical is nothing more than a desired assumption. I am personally an Orthodox Jew. My faith is in the Jewish tradition and in the Bible which it brings together with its commentary, etc. Your truth, from God who has no epistemic limitations and I will add a little later when I talk about science)
I would like to say that arguments from faith in such metaphysical contexts are very good arguments, but that arguments must first be brought to the truth of that faith. Therefore, answering such answers to an atheist will not help anything, but on the other hand, the atheist's questions about these issues are not questions at all when he is faced with someone who believes that the will and the choice precede the philosophical investigation.
i mean: on the part of the believer, answering such questions from faith is rationality. But the faith must first be examined. But there is no laziness or intellectual cowardice here, there is perhaps a waste of words here because the faith of so-and-so will not convince the questioner without first talking about its truth.
And that's why I'm not talking to you out of faith even though it's possible and the real answer for me comes from my faith: because it won't help you.
> But I find many people simply argue from belief. If they believe something it is ipso facto true (to them). They start from an a priori belief and assume its plain obviousness and absolute truth. For sure, my theory is just a theory and it has its own a prioris (initial assumptions) but it is an attempt to place such ideas in the scientific arena where empirical testing may become possible. To simply assume what you believe - from personal feeling and cultural inculcation - is true, is not the path to new discoveries. Of course, the path to new discoveries might be dangerous. But to be true to my theory, I would have to argue that people don't have free will in the whole matter anyway. It is evolution which makes the choices and that is not an exercise of free will either. But it is an exercise in myriad random walks across the fitness landscape where at least one walk might find a higher peak on the fitness landscape.
>
> A paradox arises for sure. I hold that humans are programmed. First, programmed by genetics and epigenetics and then programmed by enculturation (being brought up in a culture). Yet at the same time, I would wish that we could change our programming for the better. Changing our programming would in a sense be an action of meta-will. We cannot perform except as per our programming but can we change our programming? The only way out of this paradox that I can see is to posit evolution as the possible way forward. It is clear that humans entertain many illusions and incomplete models about themselves and their world, Human survival is not least a competition of illusions. Which illusions or incomplete models paradoxically turn out to be useful for survival? Which illusions turn out to lead humans to death and non-reproduction? Again, we cannot project but evolution can and will select.
Now I want to address the rest of your words:
A) Indeed, people in such cases often speak out of beliefs, but I think this is not only understandable but also required. As I wrote above, these issues are at the root of our cognition, you too will agree that it will be difficult for you to deal with the argument of the idler and a moral argument of "evolution says that this is what will make us exist and therefore even though man is not guilty he should be punished" is not only paradoxical but also like it as a religion, And that your very indignation at people's "choice" to talk about faith is paradoxical.
(Which is pretty much what I argued before, the claim that the "truth" is that there is no choice: comes from choice! And you attribute this understanding to yourself and want credit for it and it's nothing more than a horrible chain of oxymorons! The "thought" underlying the cogito is based on choice.)
And in addition, a camera cannot photograph itself and therefore to go to beliefs in this context is an epistemic statement according to which science cannot examine itself, for that there is a philosophy of science. And philosophy cannot understand choice because, as mentioned, choice is one of the observer's tools, just as the camera cannot photograph itself and logic cannot prove itself logically, etc., the existence of choice is axiomatic and the question is not "is it" but "how is it". And within this question there are categories that are also a fruitless oxymoronic attempt of thought to understand itself and there we also need beliefs. And the philosophical discussion about choice and desire is only in fairly limited areas.
(And the refutation of the ability to understand things in a way that is not experimental or philosophical is nothing more than a desired assumption. I am personally an Orthodox Jew. My faith is in the Jewish tradition and in the Bible which it brings together with its commentary, etc. Your truth, from God who has no epistemic limitations and I will add a little later when I talk about science)
I would like to say that arguments from faith in such metaphysical contexts are very good arguments, but that arguments must first be brought to the truth of that faith. Therefore, answering such answers to an atheist will not help anything, but on the other hand, the atheist's questions about these issues are not questions at all when he is faced with someone who believes that the will and the choice precede the philosophical investigation.
i mean: on the part of the believer, answering such questions from faith is rationality. But the faith must first be examined. But there is no laziness or intellectual cowardice here, there is perhaps a waste of words here because the faith of so-and-so will not convince the questioner without first talking about its truth.
And that's why I'm not talking to you out of faith even though it's possible and the real answer for me comes from my faith: because it won't help you.
