Some comments on the brain in the vat

Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this? I'd like to understand how this is the case. It seems to me that everyone must start with "I exist" and move forward from there. (Source)

And:

You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it. All I'm claiming is the way things seem to me to be, and you are in no position to doubt that- or are you a mind reader?
Er, again, you're using a word in a "special" sense. Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"- or would you say that cockroaches also have religion? And I'm only asking for you to provide proof (or let's say any evidence whatsoever) for your beliefs, because you have been saying over and over that you have a hotline to absolute truth which I do not have. (Source)

Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this? 

That is merely one of the problems I've been citing. But it's a good one!

The point is not that "Christianity solves it". Rather, it's that the "I believe what I see evidence for" epistemology has no way around the problem. There can be no evidence that we're not brains in vats.

If that is one's fundamental axiom, there are all sorts of problems and questions one can't answer.

However, if one's fundamental axiom is that the God of the Bible is and speaks, then none of that is true. My fundamental axiom DOES give me a reason not to believe in the brain in a vat. zilch's does not; he has to sneak in other axioms and pretty soon we realise that all he has is just a messy mesh of subjective preferences that he happens to be saying now. Though they could change tomorrow, because after all, all his thoughts are determined by the chemicals that compose his brain.


zilch said:
we're not getting anywhere.

Au contraire, I disagree strongly. We've seen quite clearly that all you have is your blind faith, and that faith doesn't match what you're getting out of it.


You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it.

Evidence?
How do you know evidence is a good way to discover truth? What evidence of that assertion have you seen? How do you know you properly saw it? How do you know you properly processed what you saw? How do you know you're communicating relevant information to that experience you had?
How would you know if you did NOT see evidence, since experiencing evidence is a sensation? What does NOT experiencing evidence feel like? Is it also a sensation? How did you learn it?

See, one can just go on and on with these questions. It always comes back to "well, I think so", as if zilch has some sort of ability to pronounce on absolute truth from where he stands.


Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"

Oh? It's a metaphysical claim.
It's centered on one charismatic personality, namely you.
You have a single authority - what you think your brain is doing.
You can't adduce any evidence for this belief.
Sounds a lot like what you accuse religion of being to me.


would you say that cockroaches also have religion?

As if you have any idea whether cockroaches actually exist, for one thing.
Or what sensations they have.

Yes, I have a "hotline" that is available to anyone who is willing to repent of one's sinful self-deceptive self-sufficiency. Hardly a hotline, really. It's just listening to the One Who is in a position to know what I can't know, and believing Him.

zilch's faith

zilch demonstrates that he has not yet grasped the problem with which I've been presenting him.


No, I'm not certain, and I don't know for sure, as I've said many times.

Are you certain that you're uncertain? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


Based on my experiences and cogitation

Are you certain of your experiences and cogitation? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


The same, of course, is true of you and everyone else.

Are you certain that the same is true of me and everyone else? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


I just said that I don't know anything with certainty.

Are you certain that you just said that? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


Your question here is incoherent

Are you certain it is incoherent? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


there's no infinite regress

Are you certain there's no infinite regress? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


because everything is uncertain

Are you certain that everything is uncertain? How do you know?
Why, if EVERYTHING is uncertain, did you say that everything is uncertain? Is the statement "everything is uncertain" part of the "everything" that is uncertain?


I live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay my taxes

Are you certain that you live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay your taxes? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


I don't see much difference here

Are you certain you don't see much difference here? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


you've (as I've also said) simply papered over the fact that you have no more certainty than I do

Are you certain I've papered over that fact? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


But you're mistaken if you believe that I'm somehow encumbered by my admission that I have no ultimate certainty

Are you certain that I'm mistaken? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


I can live with not believing I've got a hotline to absolute truth

Are you certain you can live without it? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


this impasse is a good example of what happens when one regards the Word as more important than the World

Are you certain that this is an impasse? How do you know?
Are you certain that it's what happens? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


they are indispensable

Are you certain words are indispensable? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?

The fundamentalists keep on coming

Chris (from Oz) said...
Why do we need to account for evidence's utility and existance (sic) ?

Just stop a second and listen to yourself. Why do you need to account for its *existence*? Are you looking for explanations or not? Interested in truth or not?

Tell you what, though...
Why do we need to account for Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead?
Answer me that and you may have your own answer.


There are many mysteries. Why can't this be one ?

This sure seems to me a convenient escape hatch. You come in here all sure that you can just throw around "prove it!"s about MY position, and you have less than no evidence for your own position. Typical atheist move, actually.


Prove that evidence's utility and existance (sic) must be accounted for.

It is apparently a fruitless exercise for someone with such a powerful faith as yours. You put the greatest faith-healer to shame with your blind confidence in the power of your convictions. It's a bit embarrassing.
Atheists, gather 'round - this guy is no friend of your position either.


A theistic God is certainly not the only explanation for evidence. And doubtful it's the best.

How could you possibly know that, since you were, one sentence ago, strongly questioning whether evidence even needs to be accounted for. You need to figure out WHETHER it needs to be accounted for before we can deal with this question.

Using logic and reason, which we both agree is useful.

I don't agree that they are useful on atheism, no. I'm waiting for your argument.

No faith, just faith

Chris (from Oz) said...

What type of faith ? Dogmatic faith in things not in evidence.

Then, later, he said:

From your link, it seems that you're saying there's no way to prove that evidence is the best way to discover truth, as trying to do so degenerates into a circular proof. Sounds right to me.

Fair enough.
This leads him, however, to one of the problems I've stated:
Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?

The voice of faith

Fundamentalist Chris unveils this gem of a comment:

Rhology: Diff kinds of dogs are examples of MICROevolution.
I'm looking for a dog turning into a human. Something like that. Lizards into birds.

So, Rhology. Here's how I see your definitions. Microevolution is evolution that can be observed over a human lifetime. Macroevolution is evolutions that happens over considerably more than a human lifetime.

Then, you declare that there's no proof for macroevolution because nobody has ever seen it happen over a human lifetime!!!!

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Little further comment is needed, I should think.