• Bartricks
    6k
    If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not provide us with any true awareness of anything (including that). As we are aware of some things, we are not wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces.

    1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything
    2. Our faculties of awareness do provide us with some awareness of something
    3. Therefore our faculties of awareness are not wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces


    Here is my argument for the truth of the first premise. Imagine some clouds form into shapes that appear to spell out "there's a pie in your the oven". Are you being told something? No. If unguided - by which I mean, unguided by any agency - natural forces produced those shapes in the sky, then it was not imparting information to you. It was just pure fluke that, to you, the clouds appeared to be trying to tell you something. They were not 'trying' to tell you anything, for they are not agents and so are not in the 'trying' business.

    Does anything change if, coincidentally, there is in fact a pie in your the oven? Obviously not. If you acquired the true belief that there is a pie in your oven in this way, then although your belief is - by coincidence - true, this does not magically mean that you were being given information by the clouds, and your belief, though true, does not constitute knowledge.

    At first the analysis we might give here is that the reason you don't 'know' that there is a pie in your oven is that it was just coincidental that the clouds formed those shapes and that the belief these shapes caused you to acquire was in fact true.

    But I think that can't be correct, for just imagine that putting the pie in the oven somehow did actually cause the clouds to form into those shapes. Imagine, if you like, that the steam coming out of your oven as the pie cooks is what forms into those shapes and that this wouldn't have happened had there been no pie in your oven. Well, it seems just as clear in this case that you did not acquire knowledge that there was a pie in your oven from those cloud shapes, just a true belief.

    It seems to me that what's preventing you from acquiring knowledge in this sort of case is that you have acquired a true belief from an 'apparent' representation, not a real one. It is not sufficient that your belief about the pie was caused by a pie - that is, caused by something answering to the content of your belief - for it nevertheless remains the case that the pie was not trying to communicate with you (likewise for the clouds the pie created). That is, the pie was not using the clouds as a means of communicating its location to you.

    If that's correct, then surely this applies to all of the beliefs that one acquires? For example, imagine that it seems to you that you are perceiving a pie in the oven and this is how you have acquired the belief that there is a pie in the oven. However, you are actually having an accurate dream. That is, your body is indeed in front of the oven and your eyes are so positioned that, were you to awake, you would perceive the pie in the oven. But you are actually fast asleep and, by pure coincidence, you are dreaming that you are in exactly the position you are actually in and seeing exactly what you would in fact be seeing were you not dreaming (such that if you were to awake right now, this would seem like blinking).

    Well, it seems just as clear in this case that your belief that there is a pie in the oven does not constitute knowledge that there is a pie in the oven. And though it is a huge coincidence that the content of your dream experience is introspectively indiscernible from what you'd have seen had you been awake, we have seen already that this is not what explains why your belief fails to constitute an item of knowledge.

    What explains this failure to know is the fact that no one was trying to convey to you that there was a pie in the oven by means of your dream states. And that will hold true of your perceptual states as well, or at least it will if the faculty that puts you in them is one that is wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces.

    So, in essence if our faculties of awareness - or rather, 'faculties of awareness' - are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then none of us are 'perceiving' reality at all. Rather, we are - at best - having accurate dreams. But accurate dreams do not furnish us with knowledge.

    What about the second premise? Well, I take it that any attempt to deny this premise will undermine itself. For if, on the basis of what I have said above combined with a conviction that we are indeed a product of unguided evolutionary processes, you are persuaded that we are not aware of anything, then you will have to admit that you are not aware of that too. Which makes no real sense.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Keep in mind that Bart thinks God can create a square circle.


    If he thinks contradictions are possible, Bart will not be in a position to consider your reasoned arguments.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    Based on what Banno points out and what you've said elsewhere, you don't have an answer to the problem of pain because God can do all evil as well as good. So he can fool us all he wants, making us confused and miserable. So if matter alone is not the explanation for perception, we can also say a God that that is not bound by rules is not the answer either.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Based on what Banno points outGregory

    That's not a good start.

    you don't have an answer to the problem of pain because God can do all evil as well as goodGregory

    Er, no, that's not anything I've said anywhere. And relevance to the OP? Christ, can't any of you actually focus on the OP and not on me and try and bloody argue something?!

    Go read an SEP page on perception or Gettier cases or something (not that I've read them - I read the articles and books they're based on - but it's what everyone around here reads and regurgitates) then read the OP and try and engage in some kind of philosophical debate or go away and be confused all over someone else's thread. Buddhists! Jeez.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    I was pointing out that you need to put something in the place of matter as causing sensations and that your idea of God does not work in this regard. If you have another explanation in regard to epistemology do offer it
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I was pointing out that you need to put something in the place of matter as causing sensations and that your idea of God does not work in this regard. If you have another explanation in regard to epistemology do offer itGregory

    Well you used entirely the wrong words to point that out.

    Address the OP or go away.
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anythingBartricks

    You have failed to address how being aware of a pie being in the oven is connected to evolution. Surely when humans began their development there were no pies nor ovens. But the early humans did look at the clouds for messages.

    And what does awareness have to do with knowledge. What we are aware of is not allows truth, that is a fact. But if we are not aware of something, then it cannot be knowledge.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    Well we might not understand what matter is so we can't know whether we think with it or something else. The idea of soul you have in your consciousness might be the proper thought with regard to matter and your brain. It is possible we get fooled by these ideas. Logic might apply to the universe but our logic might not because we might assign ideas of mind to something outside matter when it really springs from matter. I don't think it's a very important issue in the context it's often put in.
  • Mark Nyquist
    744
    Can you identify a point where unguided evolutionary forces fail?
    For example plant life, simple organisms, complex organisms, brains, brains with awareness.
    And could you expand on why the "faculty of awareness" could not develop by a physical process.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Can you identify a point where unguided evolutionary forces fail?
    For example plant life, simple organisms, complex organisms, brains, brains with awareness.
    And could you expand on why the "faculty of awareness" could not develop by a physical process.
    Mark Nyquist

    They fail in every case: that's what I'm arguing. That 'if' our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes - that is, if we just evolved them - then they never give us any real awareness of anything.

    I would have to repeat the OP to explain this - but I argued it using cases where it is quite clear that awareness has not been achieved, and then showed that this would be the case across the board if blind evolutionary forces had developed our faculties.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    You can't seriously think that constitutes addressing the OP?
  • Mark Nyquist
    744
    Every case and the origin of the universe too?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    You have failed to address how being aware of a pie being in the oven is connected to evolution.Sir2u

    I am arguing that if our faculties are a product of unguided evolution, then they do 'not' provide us with any awareness of the pie in the oven. I argued this by showing how the lack of agential guidance would mean that our situation is that of someone having an accurate dream about a pie. I am somewhat puzzled, then, that you should ask me to show you the connection given that the entire OP is devoted to doing precisely that.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Every case and the origin of the universe too?Mark Nyquist

    I do not understand your question. We are aware of things, yes? I said premise 2 was true and that denying it would commit one to a nonsensical position.

    So we 'are' aware of things.

    I then argued that we would 'not' be aware of anything if unguided evolution had furnished us with our 'faculties of awareness'.

    Thus, I conclude that our faculties of awareness are not wholly the product of unguided evolution.

    This was all in the OP.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    Where's the argument that matter is not mighty enough in its substance to provide perception once the matter rolls, meshes, and forms randomly into the proper structure? We know what a pie is like an animal knows what meat is. Is your argument that abstract thinking itself can't come from matter? That's what I thought the OP was about at first
  • Mark Nyquist
    744
    You used the term "agency" so I'm asking if the same agency applies to the origin of the universe.
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    I reread the OP for a second time and he seems to be arguing that dreaming the world into existence is impossible because we can connect logical connections in the world
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Where's the argument that matter is not mighty enough in its substance to provide perception once the matter rolls, meshes, and forms randomly into the proper structure?Gregory

    In the OP!!!
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I reread the OP for a second time and he seems to be arguing that dreaming the world into existence is impossible because we can connect logical connections in the worldGregory

    Er, what?!? No, I really am not! You're fired.
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    The

    I've read it twice and the OP is not very clear and probably not very good as an argument. Also, why can't you control your emotions in discussions.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    You used the term "agency" so I'm asking if the same agency applies to the origin of the universe.Mark Nyquist

    That's a different topic. I am arguing that in order for our faculties of awareness actually to give us any awareness of anything, they'd need to be designed by an agent for that very purpose, otherwise we're just having accurate dreams.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    Maybe the "agent" gave us dreams
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I've read it twice and the OP is not very clear and probably not very good as an argument.Gregory

    That's your analysis. I would give a very different one. But politeness prevents me from providing it.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Why is the word 'agent' in inverted commas? And yes, what's your point? I am arguing that some agential guidance is necessary (not sufficient) for awareness. So yes, of course an agent can induce dreams. The point is that an agent can also induce awareness.
  • skyblack
    545
    in order for our faculties of awarenessBartricks

    Can you explain what you mean by "faculties of awareness"?
  • Mark Nyquist
    744
    Fair enough...I guess.
    Something else you mentioned was the term "imparting information". Is that just common usage or do you envision information pixies riding light beams?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Our sensible faculties - which provide us with visual and other sensations - and our reason (our intellectual faculty or faculty of reason).

    So, I seem currently to be visually aware of a computer monitor. If, however, my faculty of vision is wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then I am not seeing the computer monitor. Rather, I am having a dream of a computer monitor induced in me (albeit by, among other things, a computer monitor).
  • skyblack
    545
    Our sensible faculties - which provide us with visual and other sensations - and our reason (our intellectual faculty or faculty of reason).

    So, I seem currently to be visually aware of a computer monitor. If, however, my faculty of vision is wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then I am not seeing the computer monitor. Rather, I am having a dream of a computer monitor induced in me (albeit by, among other things, a computer monitor).
    Bartricks

    The sensible faculties are through which awareness operates, but the faculties do not create awareness, right? The faculty of vision does not create awareness, right?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Something else you mentioned was the term "imparting information". Is that just common usage or do you envision information pixies riding light beams?Mark Nyquist

    Oh stop asking sneery questions. Here's a question for you, Mark Noclue. What's the difference between a bot and an actual person?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    The sensible faculties are through which awareness operates, but the faculties do not create awareness, right? The faculty of vision does not create awareness, right?skyblack

    I am not sure I like your phrasing. Our faculties are the means by which we gain awareness, but faculties do not themselves perceive things and when we perceive things we are not perceiving faculties. We perceive with our sight, but we do not see our sight and our sight itself sees nothing. If that is the same as what you're saying, then yes. But I am not sure it is.
  • Mark Nyquist
    744
    Maybe awareness. Is that the answer you want? tim wood warned us.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment