Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#1
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
In the interest of a fresh start let us begin at the beginning. I will state my most basic axiom (deeply held personal beliefs from which I build outwards) and I welcome critiques and also encourage others to share their own most basic axiom.

My most fundamental and basic axiom is as follows.

I am experiencing something.

That's it. That is all I can be 100% sure of. Even if the I in 'I am' turns put to be nothing more than the sum total of the experiential data.

Any attempt to address this experience or to communicate with any other apparent conciousnesses within it (other people for example) requires that I first accept the experience I am having more or less at face value and I cannot actually falsify this proposition. That being the case any proposition within that framework that cannot be falsified even if I do make the assumption that my personal perceived reality reflects some 'actual' reality must therefore be dismissed as doubly insupportable. 

Thank you for reading and for any contribution you should make to the thread...if any of this is actually happening of course.

Yours skeptically secularmerlin.
Topic's author
#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Perhaps we could start with something more fundamental. If understanding one another's viewpoint is our goal in these discussions then it couldn't hurt to start with our starting assumptions.

#3
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You first
Topic's author
#4
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
My most fundamental and basic axiom is as follows.

I am experiencing something.

That's it. That is all I can be 100% sure of. Even if the I in 'I am' turns put to be nothing more than the sum total of the experiential data.

Any attempt to address this experience or to communicate with any other apparent conciousnesses within it (other people for example) requires that I first accept the experience I am having more or less at face value and I cannot actually falsify this proposition. That being the case any proposition within that framework that cannot be falsified even if I do make the assumption that my personal perceived reality reflects some 'actual' reality must therefore be dismissed as doubly insupportable. 

(Restated from previous)

#5
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
This is too vague to demand a response from, what specifically are you experiencing?
Topic's author
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Presumably my organic human brain's best approximation of reality such as it is. I cannot devise a test however which doesnot rely directly on this input so I cannot be completely certain. I can however be certain that this is the only reality of which I am aware. That being the case there seems no sensible reason not to interact with it as though it were real (more or less) until I am presented with definitive proof one way or another. In other words I don't know with absolute certainty that anything exists but in a much as I don't have a reason to participate and engage reality I also have no reason not to and I do have emotional attachments within that framework which actually encourages interaction. 
#7
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I also have no reason not to
That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, and you can emote all you want but if you believe others should have the same emotional appeals then you’re gonna have to provide something more than a fallacy to be convincing.
Topic's author
#8
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
All things being equal but all things are not equal and I do have reasons at least even if none of this is real. Even if my hand doesn't exist it still hurts when it is closed in an equally nonexistent door. This isn't rocket science. 
Topic's author
#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
That’s not how logic works you can’t prove a negative, and you can emote all you want but if you believe others should have the same emotional appeals then you’re gonna have to provide something more than a fallacy to be convincing.
What is it you think I am trying to convince you of? These are my axioms. You don't have to share them in order for us to have a discussion but it couldn't hurt if you at least understand them.
#10
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What is it you think I am trying to convince you of? 
Before I answer I think it’s important I have the right idea, what does it mean “to participate and engage reality”?
Topic's author
#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
“to participate and engage reality”?
A good example would be having this conversation with you and affording you respect as an interlocutor.
#12
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What is it you think I am trying to convince you of? 
That a fallacy is logical.
Topic's author
#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Please elaborate. 
#14
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You literally said emotions is the sole reason behind your decisions, what did you mean to accomplish by telling me that? That being impulsive is reasonable? Are you suggesting that I should be impulsive in that same regard?
Topic's author
#15
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You literally said emotions is the sole reason behind your decisions, what did you mean to accomplish by telling me that? That being impulsive is reasonable? Are you suggesting that I should be impulsive in that same regard?
I am not suggesting that you do or believe anything. I am simply explaining what I believe and why I believe it. 
#16
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
And I’m saying if you don’t believe there’s proof validating your emotions then you shouldn’t have them.
Topic's author
#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Also and I can't stress this enough the actual experiences themselves can constitute a reason to engage. Some experiences are enjoyable while others are unenjoyable or even distressing or painful. 
#18
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You can’t be so vague with me, what kind of experiences?

Topic's author
#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
And I’m saying if you don’t believe there’s proof validating your emotions then you shouldn’t have them.
I'm not sure what this means. Validate my emotions how? Prove them to whom? 
Topic's author
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You can’t be so vague with me, what kind of experiences?
Sight, smell, taste, touch and sound at least.
#21
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Sight, smell, taste, touch and sound at least.
It’s kind of hard not to engage in those things and stay alive, are you sure that’s mainly what you meant?
Topic's author
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
It’s kind of hard not to engage in those things and stay alive, are you sure that’s what you meant?
I mean that the experiences I have give every impression that this is the case. If what I am experiencing is real and I neglect my senses enough to wander into dangerous situation then I have every reason to suspect that I will stop experiencing things altogether and even if it isn't I have no wish to experience the possible pain. I don't necessarily have to believe in this reality to justify living my life just as I always have. There is benefit to learning about this framework and reacting to stimuli in a way that is likely to promote (possibly illusionary) happiness and avoid (possibly illusionary) pain. 

I am not trying to win you over to this point of view, in fact I am perfectly willing to accept this reality at face value. It hardly makes sense to engage with you while simultaneously denying your existence and personhood. That being said even if I accept reality at face value there is no sufficient evidence to believe that any god(s) are a part of this reality. The same goes for ghosts, goblins, unicorns, leprechauns, alien abduction, bigfoot,the loch ness monster and any kind of intrinsic objective morality. 
#23
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not trying to win you over to this point of view, in fact I am perfectly willing to accept this reality at face value.
... Then what’s the point of this forum?
Topic's author
#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Please elaborate. 
#25
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That’s for you not me, I’m not trying to be hard on you but it seems to me that you’re attempting to explain your mentality but when I ask questions about it you have no answer, seems to me that you need to do more soul searching within yourself because you seem uncertain about a lot of things.
Topic's author
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Uncertainty is a hallmark of the human experience. I am comfortable if not entirely satisfied with "I don't know" as being the most honest answer to mote questions than not.

I understand that this can be difficult to accept.
#27
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I understand that this can be difficult to accept.
It’s not but at the very least it makes more sense to consider yourself an agnostic not an atheist.
Topic's author
#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I did not call myself either in our discussions but some clarification seems to be in order. Gnosticism and theism are separate issues. one is concerned only with belief in god(s) the other is concerned with knowledge (or at least the claim of knowledge. There are both gnostic and agnostic atheists and also gnostic and agnostic theists. There are even religious atheist like daoists and some Buddhists. I am in fact an agnostic atheist. I know of no sufficient evidence for any god(s) and as a result I do not believe in any god(s).

Unlike my experience of reality however no god(s) are observable even if I accept reality at face value. I have far less confidence in the existence of some god(s) than my confidence that you exist or that Tahiti exists. The difference is that although I have never seen you or Tahiti I have examples of people and physical locations in my experience. Presumably reality exists and if so people exist and so I can believe that you are A) exist and B) are a person. By contrast I have no experience of any god(s). The most reasonable position is to believe only in those things which can be demonstrated. I understand the weakness in this which is my inability to verify my experience except through my experience but assuming that I can learn or know things I have learned of no and know of no god(s).

Does that explain my position? I don't care if you agree at the moment. I'd like to begin with just understanding. 
Topic's author
#29
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
That being said if you are more comfortable using the term agnostic I do not necessarily object so long as you understand that the language you use does not change my position or bring me any closer to maintaining a belief in any god(s).
#30
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not believe in any god(s). 
It’s one thing to say you don’t believe it’s another to say it doesn’t exist are you merely saying the former?