I'm interested in where people get their epistemology more than in what particular epistemology they choose. This has been an interest of mine for a long time.
-
-
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
Personally, I probably have a brain that is naturally disinclined to obeyance (even toward myself). I also grew up in an atheist world but with inconsistent teleological metaphysics (East Germany), so I saw myself forced to reject external epistemological offerings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Yes, I agree. I think environment does play a role in making us psychologically more or less inclined to a particular position. But I think the tweet that accompanied this one indicates that you are also working out a rational argument in defense of reason. Is this correct?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
I am not a priori committed to reason, I just have a model of the space of results of picking the alternatives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Are you then a posteriori committed to reason or would you be agnostic with respect to this as you are with respect to the existence of a real world?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
Yes! For instance, if it turns out that we get better predictions by assuming that we don't live in a world with definite ground truth (like a David Lynch movie), and revelation through telepathic tree stumps works better, we may have to drop reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Alright, don't lose patience with me here because this may sound a little weird but in such a world would reason *necessarily* be antithetical to said revelation or could it act in service of it. I'm talking about your hypothetical world here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
You cannot reason when you cannot establish noncontradictory axioms, but if you are lucky you may be able to prove that your brain cannot compute on them, or that your universe does not have a computable nature.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
How are reason and revelation contradictory axioms? Even in this world the trees "speak" to us (reveal information), perhaps in another possible world they have more to say. The same reason interprets the revelation in both cases?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
I think we can reframe the question into whether we live in a symbolic reality (material events have symbolic causes, such as incantations or mouse clicks) or a mechanist reality, and whether we can use mechanical reasoning to model it, or our modeling itself uses revelations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We may reconcile this with computationalist mechanism by proposing that the observed dynamics of our universe or our mental models are computed in a mechanistic parent universe. But all bets are off. We may also be fully delusional.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.