Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:19 am Can you show me the possibility that in the future, humans will be able to prove square-circles exist.
I see that for you it is quite impossible to go even just a bit outside the mentality I already described. As I said, it happened already in the past that certain things were thought as absolutely certain and that anything different was impossible to happen in the future, but then their thought proved wrong and what was conceived impossible to happen actually happened. If this happened in the past, nothing prevents it to happen again now and in the future. It seems that for you this is difficult to realize, so you prefer to repeat exactly the same error I described: you think that what is outside your understanding cannot exist and cannot happen in the future.

A square circle is outside your understanding, so you think that, as a consequence, it cannot exist and can never exist in the future. This is exactly what people thought, for example, about the sun rotating around the earth, and the earth conceived as the still center of the universe. You think that now we are more intelligent, we have more scientific and rational data, but this is exactly what they thought in the past: they thought they had reached a high level of knowledge, so that anything unexpected about this was impossible to happen. Now you think exactly the same about your thoughts.

Your mentality is identical to those who condemned Galileo: they thought that what was inconceivable to them was impossible to happen in their present and in their future.
I believe what you lack is an understanding of basic logic.
  • In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states
    that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
    Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). The law is not to be confused with the law of excluded middle which states that at least one, "p is the case" or "p is not the case" holds.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
To consider anything that is possible to exist in the future, note this discussion;
viewtopic.php?p=578127#p578127

To understand what is possible beyond what is known at present, note this;

In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell explain the function of "philosophy" as follows:
Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)
From the above you will note Russell stated science provide basic truth.
As such one must ground one's knowledge of science before stepping into No Man’s Land and invoking philosophy.

This mean that you cannot leap beyond No Man’s Land to jump into conclusion like theology.

What one need in No Man’s Land is sound philosophical reasoning [grounded on science] which you are not doing above.
you think that what is outside your understanding cannot exist and cannot happen in the future
So if you think what is outside your current understanding and can happen in the future, you have to comply with the above process of not jumping across the no-mans-land.
Galileo complied with the above requirements on not jumping across the non-mans-land ungrounded but relied on the existing scientific knowledge.

What theists are doing with their belief in God is they are jumping across the no-mans-land ungrounded and insisting God is real at present and will be eternally in the future.

Btw, do not consider the OP,
Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative with its evidences,
is an impossibility?
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:26 am If your model of truths, facts and knowledge of God [non-physical] is not of near equivalence to the scientific model [the standard] then your Got is not true, factual nor of knowledge, thus it is likely to be an illusion.
Note if your God is non-physical, then it cannot be verified by science or a model of near equivalence to the scientific model.
Science is not pure reason given the fact that it is justified by experimental test reports, and therefore always dependent on sensory input.

How can science be "the standard" for pure reason when it is itself not even pure reason?

Mathematics is an important subdiscipline in pure reason. However, there are other subdisciplines in pure reason. For example, epistemology is also pure reason.

Experimental test reporting is not "the standard" for all knowledge. On the contrary, in my opinion scientism is a very misguided aberration.

Experimental test reports are not accepted as legitimate justification in arithmetic theory. They are not accepted in any subdiscipline of pure reason. What on earth makes you believe that experimental test reports should be accepted as justification in religion?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:26 am If your model of truths, facts and knowledge of God [non-physical] is not of near equivalence to the scientific model [the standard] then your Got is not true, factual nor of knowledge, thus it is likely to be an illusion.
Note if your God is non-physical, then it cannot be verified by science or a model of near equivalence to the scientific model.
Science is not pure reason given the fact that it is justified by experimental test reports, and therefore always dependent on sensory input.

How can science be "the standard" for pure reason when it is itself not even pure reason?

Mathematics is an important subdiscipline in pure reason. However, there are other subdisciplines in pure reason. For example, epistemology is also pure reason.

Experimental test reporting is not "the standard" for all knowledge. On the contrary, in my opinion scientism is a very misguided aberration.

Experimental test reports are not accepted as legitimate justification in arithmetic theory. They are not accepted in any subdiscipline of pure reason. What on earth makes you believe that experimental test reports should be accepted as justification in religion?
I have no issue with mathematics, other than dispute with you where I insist mathematics is ultimately linked to [abstracted from] the empirical and the senses.

Note this point;
The history of mathematics is nearly as old as humanity itself. Since antiquity, mathematics has been fundamental to advances in science, engineering, and philosophy.

It has evolved from simple counting, measurement and calculation, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects,
through the application of abstraction, imagination and logic, to the broad, complex and often abstract discipline we know today.
https://www.storyofmathematics.com/
Surely 'simple counting' has to do with observations of physical empirical things. You deny this?

Btw, Mathematics is not based on pure reason. Mathematics is based on higher levels of reasonings involving abstraction, logic, critical thinking and the like.

Pure reason refer to the crude reason or proto-reasons which any child would do in jumping to conclusion.
When a child see "Santa Claus" as doing what humans are doing, the child will believe Santa Claus is real as observed and believe Santa Claus is from somewhere [Artic] as told by their parents and others.
This is the same as adults using pure reason to jump to the conclusion across the no-mans-land that [the illusory] God exists as real.

Kant did an extensive explanation of how adults are triggered by Pure Reason to jump to the conclusion and illusion, God exists as real;
Kant in CPR wrote:
1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself, God} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.

3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.

5. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
Read the above carefully.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:56 am I have no issue with mathematics, other than dispute with you where I insist mathematics is ultimately linked to [abstracted from] the empirical and the senses.
No, it is not. This is the case in informal mathematics. It is not the case in modern mathematics which is axiomatic:
Wikipedia on "informal mathematics" wrote: Informal mathematics, also called naïve mathematics, has historically been the predominant form of mathematics at most times and in most cultures, and is the subject of modern ethno-cultural studies of mathematics.

Informal mathematics means any informal mathematical practices, as used in everyday life, or by aboriginal or ancient peoples, without historical or geographical limitation. Modern mathematics, exceptionally from that point of view, emphasizes formal and strict proofs of all statements from given axioms. This can usefully be called therefore formal mathematics.

Several ancient societies built impressive mathematical systems and carried out complex calculations based on proofless heuristics and practical approaches. Mathematical facts were accepted on a pragmatic basis. Empirical methods, as in science, provided the justification for a given technique.
Empirical mathematics is what aboriginal tribes use. Modern mathematics completely rejects that approach. Modern mathematics is exclusively foundationalist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:56 am Surely 'simple counting' has to do with observations of physical empirical things. You deny this?
Yes, for aboriginal tribes. No, for modern mathematics.

The standard theory for the natural numbers, i.e. Peano Arithmetic Theory (PA), is totally unrelated to observing anything in the physical universe. It is exclusively based on symbol (=string) manipulation rules as axiomatized in its foundational rules.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:56 am Btw, Mathematics is not based on pure reason. Mathematics is based on higher levels of reasonings involving abstraction, logic, critical thinking and the like.
First-order logic is part of mathematics. Even higher-order logic is part of mathematics. Logic has been completely axiomatized already in the 19th century. Logic is now a completely axiomatic discipline. According to the logicist ontology of mathematics, "mathematics is logic":
Britannica on "logicism" wrote: Logicism, intuitionism, and formalism. During the first half of the 20th century, the philosophy of mathematics was dominated by three views: logicism, intuitionism, and formalism.

Logicism is the view that mathematical truths are ultimately logical truths. This idea was introduced by Frege. He endorsed logicism in conjunction with Platonism, but logicism is consistent with various anti-Platonist views as well. Logicism was also endorsed at about the same time by Russell and his associate, British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.
Furthermore, all reasoning that does not use sensory input ("a posteriori") is pure reason, not just mathematics.

The incredibly thing is that all these different ontologies for mathematics, i.e. logicism, Platonism, structuralism, constructivism, and formalism, are simultaneously correct. They are merely another view on the same abstraction, emphasizing some other aspect, but also holographic enough to be able to capture all details again.
Wikipedia on "Critique of Pure Reason" wrote: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience"
The term "experience" means "sensory input" in this context. Hence, if you do not use any sensory input in your reasoning, your reasoning is "pure". If you do use sensory input, then your reasoning is impure.
Kant in CPR wrote:
1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
Yes, if we do not use sensory input ("empirical premisses") but the systemic context ("the theory") allows us to conclude theorems that we did not know before, then such theorem is "synthetic", i.e. increases our knowledge about the systemic context, i.e. the formal system.
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
Mathematics never ascribes its conclusions, i.e. its theorems, to the physical universe ("objective reality"). According to the Platonic ontology of Mathematics, these theorems are true logic sentences that exist in an abstract, Platonic world. If in the theory, i.e. the systemic context, the theorem of soundness is provable, then such logic sentence will be true in all universes ("interpretations") that interpret the formal system, i.e. the theory.

Model theory was not developed yet when Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. That is why Kant speaks of "inevitable illusion". The modern term is not "illusion" but "abstraction". But then again, who cares? The term "illusion" is actually also fine.
2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself, God} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
Are "abstractions" just "illusions"?
Are the non-physical objects in mathematics such as natural numbers, sets, combinators, and types, just "illusions"?
I don't care actually. Yes, possibly.
One thing is however for sure. The Platonic ontology of mathematics rejects the idea that these non-physical objects would exist in the physical universe. Instead, they exist in an abstract, Platonic universe.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical Platonism" wrote: Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of numbers. The term Platonism is used because such a view is seen to parallel Plato's Theory of Forms and a "World of Ideas" (Greek: eidos (εἶδος)) described in Plato's allegory of the cave: the everyday world can only imperfectly approximate an unchanging, ultimate reality. Both Plato's cave and Platonism have meaningful, not just superficial connections, because Plato's ideas were preceded and probably influenced by the hugely popular Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, who believed that the world was, quite literally, generated by numbers.

A major question considered in mathematical Platonism is: Precisely where and how do the mathematical entities exist, and how do we know about them? Is there a world, completely separate from our physical one, that is occupied by the mathematical entities? How can we gain access to this separate world and discover truths about the entities?
The Platonic universe of mathematics is indeed an "abstraction" or even an "illusion" if you prefer. Who cares?
3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
Totally true. I do not deny Kant's view on "abstractions", i.e. "illusions". They simply do not exist in the physical universe. Pretty much everybody agrees on that.
5. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
It is obvious that abstractions ("illusions") dominate our thinking.

Pure Reason are syllogisms, i.e. abstractions, that take non-sensory premises as input (again abstractions), and produce conclusions as output (again abstractions).

Y = f(X)

In the equation above, X,Y, and f are abstractions. All of them.
They do not exist in the physical universe.
So, yes, they are probably "illusions", but who even cares?
Mathematics are always "illusions" about other "illusions", but so what?

All Pure Reason is 100% "abstract" in input, output, and syllogisms. In Kantian terms, "abstract" is a synonym for "illusory". I have no problem with that.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:56 am I have no issue with mathematics, other than dispute with you where I insist mathematics is ultimately linked to [abstracted from] the empirical and the senses.
No, it is not. This is the case in informal mathematics. It is not the case in modern mathematics which is axiomatic:
Wikipedia on "informal mathematics" wrote: Informal mathematics, also called naïve mathematics, has historically been the predominant form of mathematics at most times and in most cultures, and is the subject of modern ethno-cultural studies of mathematics.

Informal mathematics means any informal mathematical practices, as used in everyday life, or by aboriginal or ancient peoples, without historical or geographical limitation. Modern mathematics, exceptionally from that point of view, emphasizes formal and strict proofs of all statements from given axioms. This can usefully be called therefore formal mathematics.

Several ancient societies built impressive mathematical systems and carried out complex calculations based on proofless heuristics and practical approaches. Mathematical facts were accepted on a pragmatic basis. Empirical methods, as in science, provided the justification for a given technique.
Empirical mathematics is what aboriginal tribes use. Modern mathematics completely rejects that approach. Modern mathematics is exclusively foundationalist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:56 am Surely 'simple counting' has to do with observations of physical empirical things. You deny this?
Yes, for aboriginal tribes. No, for modern mathematics.

The standard theory for the natural numbers, i.e. Peano Arithmetic Theory (PA), is totally unrelated to observing anything in the physical universe. It is exclusively based on symbol (=string) manipulation rules as axiomatized in its foundational rules.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:56 am Btw, Mathematics is not based on pure reason. Mathematics is based on higher levels of reasonings involving abstraction, logic, critical thinking and the like.
First-order logic is part of mathematics. Even higher-order logic is part of mathematics. Logic has been completely axiomatized already in the 19th century. Logic is now a completely axiomatic discipline. According to the logicist ontology of mathematics, "mathematics is logic":
Britannica on "logicism" wrote: Logicism, intuitionism, and formalism. During the first half of the 20th century, the philosophy of mathematics was dominated by three views: logicism, intuitionism, and formalism.

Logicism is the view that mathematical truths are ultimately logical truths. This idea was introduced by Frege. He endorsed logicism in conjunction with Platonism, but logicism is consistent with various anti-Platonist views as well. Logicism was also endorsed at about the same time by Russell and his associate, British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.
Furthermore, all reasoning that does not use sensory input ("a posteriori") is pure reason, not just mathematics.

The incredibly thing is that all these different ontologies for mathematics, i.e. logicism, Platonism, structuralism, constructivism, and formalism, are simultaneously correct. They are merely another view on the same abstraction, emphasizing some other aspect, but also holographic enough to be able to capture all details again.
Wikipedia on "Critique of Pure Reason" wrote: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience"
The term "experience" means "sensory input" in this context. Hence, if you do not use any sensory input in your reasoning, your reasoning is "pure". If you do use sensory input, then your reasoning is impure.
Kant in CPR wrote:
1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
Yes, if we do not use sensory input ("empirical premisses") but the systemic context ("the theory") allows us to conclude theorems that we did not know before, then such theorem is "synthetic", i.e. increases our knowledge about the systemic context, i.e. the formal system.
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
Mathematics never ascribes its conclusions, i.e. its theorems, to the physical universe ("objective reality"). According to the Platonic ontology of Mathematics, these theorems are true logic sentences that exist in an abstract, Platonic world. If in the theory, i.e. the systemic context, the theorem of soundness is provable, then such logic sentence will be true in all universes ("interpretations") that interpret the formal system, i.e. the theory.

Model theory was not developed yet when Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. That is why Kant speaks of "inevitable illusion". The modern term is not "illusion" but "abstraction". But then again, who cares? The term "illusion" is actually also fine.
2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself, God} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
Are "abstractions" just "illusions"?
Are the non-physical objects in mathematics such as natural numbers, sets, combinators, and types, just "illusions"?
I don't care actually. Yes, possibly.
One thing is however for sure. The Platonic ontology of mathematics rejects the idea that these non-physical objects would exist in the physical universe. Instead, they exist in an abstract, Platonic universe.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical Platonism" wrote: Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of numbers. The term Platonism is used because such a view is seen to parallel Plato's Theory of Forms and a "World of Ideas" (Greek: eidos (εἶδος)) described in Plato's allegory of the cave: the everyday world can only imperfectly approximate an unchanging, ultimate reality. Both Plato's cave and Platonism have meaningful, not just superficial connections, because Plato's ideas were preceded and probably influenced by the hugely popular Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, who believed that the world was, quite literally, generated by numbers.

A major question considered in mathematical Platonism is: Precisely where and how do the mathematical entities exist, and how do we know about them? Is there a world, completely separate from our physical one, that is occupied by the mathematical entities? How can we gain access to this separate world and discover truths about the entities?
The Platonic universe of mathematics is indeed an "abstraction" or even an "illusion" if you prefer. Who cares?
3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
Totally true. I do not deny Kant's view on "abstractions", i.e. "illusions". They simply do not exist in the physical universe. Pretty much everybody agrees on that.
5. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
It is obvious that abstractions ("illusions") dominate our thinking.

Pure Reason are syllogisms, i.e. abstractions, that take non-sensory premises as input (again abstractions), and produce conclusions as output (again abstractions).

Y = f(X)

In the equation above, X,Y, and f are abstractions. All of them.
They do not exist in the physical universe.
So, yes, they are probably "illusions", but who even cares?
Mathematics are always "illusions" about other "illusions", but so what?

All Pure Reason is 100% "abstract" in input, output, and syllogisms. In Kantian terms, "abstract" is a synonym for "illusory". I have no problem with that.
So, Pure Reason is dealing with the unreal, i.e. non-real.

As such conclusions from Pure Reason such as first cause, God, and the likes are unreal, i.e. fictitious and illusory.
Thus God is unreal and is merely a psychological derivative and the more intense sense of an unreal God is via mental illness such as temporal lobe epilepsy, drugs, brain damage, etc.

btw, Kant did not show Mathematics is from Pure Reason but rather mathematics is realistic because it is inferred from refined-reason where its ultimate origin is empirical.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:03 am
Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:00 am I have argued that "it is Impossible for God to exists as Real"
Sounds like if you are unable to understand something, then it doesn’t exist.
Your singular statement without justifying your point indicate your thinking in THIS CASE is too shallow and narrow. Else, prove it is otherwise by providing sound justifications.
You REALLY NEED to learn to READ the ACTUAL WORDS BEFORE 'you' "veritas aequitas".

LOOK, if something SOUNDS LIKE some 'thing' to some one, then that IS what it SOUNDS LIKE.

There is NO NEED to 'justify' THIS VIEW or POSITION.

That 'you' JUMP to the position, 'it does NOT exist', just BECAUSE ' you are YET ABLE to understand 'it' ', to me, ALSO SOUNDS and LOOKS LIKE, EXACTLY what 'you' ACTUALLY DO "veritas aequitas".

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, I am NOT CLAIMING absolutely ANY thing. Therefore, I do NOT NEED to 'justify' absolutely ANY thing here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:03 am To understand something as existing it must be verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Reality [FSK].
Which CAN BE, and WILL BE, DONE in relation to 'God', Itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:03 am The idea of God cannot be understood as real because it cannot be verified and justified as real within a credible FSK.
But 'it' CAN, and ALREADY HAS BEEN DONE.

That 'you' are NOT YET SAVVY to this Fact has absolutely NO bearing AT ON ANY thing here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:03 am Existence [is] is never a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula to connect the subject/object with the predicate.
Thus "God exists" has no real sense at all.

What is proper is to state,
God exists as X [predicate].
That predicate must be justifiable and verifiable within a credible FSK.

If I merely state @$%@# exists,
and @$%@# is inside your house now seeing everything you do,
would you accept that?
Surely you will want me to prove it with real evidences to justify it is real.
I would, FIRST, want YOUR DEFINITION of what @$@# IS, EXACTLY, and then I would want PROOF that 'thing' IS WHERE you CLAIM 'it' is and DOING what you CLAIM 'it' is doing.

And this ALSO applies to those who CLAIM that God does NOT exist as real, I would, FIRST, want YOUR DEFINITION of what God IS, EXACTLY. UNTIL THEN what you want to SAY and CLAIM is REALLY and LITERALLY absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am So,
In Kant's time, they did not use the term "abstraction". They used the term "illusion". There is no point in using a modern dictionary to look up the meaning of 18th century vocabulary.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am Pure Reason is dealing with the unreal, i.e. non-real.
Pure reason deals with the abstract, i.e. non-physical.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am As such conclusions from Pure Reason such as first cause, God, and the likes are unreal, i.e. fictitious and illusory.
Numbers and sets are also abstract. That simply means that they are non-physical. That does not mean that they would be fictitious or illusory (in a modern sense).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am Thus God is unreal and is merely a psychological derivative and the more intense sense of an unreal God is via mental illness such as temporal lobe epilepsy, drugs, brain damage, etc.
In religion, we believe that spirituality has healing properties. Everybody believes what they want about it. If spirituality does not work for you, then use something else instead.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am btw, Kant did not show Mathematics is from Pure Reason
Kant said that classical Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, because it is based on solving visual puzzles. Kant never said that about arithmetic or algebra.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am but rather mathematics is realistic because it is inferred from refined-reason where its ultimate origin is empirical.
Kant said that only about Euclidean geometry, which is indeed to some extent impure, because its straightedge-and-compass method is not pure symbol manipulation. The Euclidean method does create some kind of visual input to the problem.

But then again, this is not the case for anything else in mathematics.

Furthermore, in modern mathematics, classical Euclidean geometry has entirely been replaced by algebraic geometry, which is purely abstract and therefore pure reason.

So, yes, ancient Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, but no, modern mathematics is pure reason, as it no longer makes use of ancient Euclidean geometry.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am So,
In Kant's time, they did not use the term "abstraction". They used the term "illusion". There is no point in using a modern dictionary to look up the meaning of 18th century vocabulary.
You are merely trying to pull a fast one when you are not familiar with Kant's philosophy.

Note the term 'abstract' in Kant's CPR,
Kant in CPR wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
The term 'abstract' is used 163 times in the CPR.
The term 'illusion' as not-real i.e. implying an illusory entity is used 246 times in the CPR.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am Pure Reason is dealing with the unreal, i.e. non-real.
Pure reason deals with the abstract, i.e. non-physical.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am As such conclusions from Pure Reason such as first cause, God, and the likes are unreal, i.e. fictitious and illusory.
Numbers and sets are also abstract. That simply means that they are non-physical. That does not mean that they would be fictitious or illusory (in a modern sense).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am Thus God is unreal and is merely a psychological derivative and the more intense sense of an unreal God is via mental illness such as temporal lobe epilepsy, drugs, brain damage, etc.
In religion, we believe that spirituality has healing properties. Everybody believes what they want about it. If spirituality does not work for you, then use something else instead.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am btw, Kant did not show Mathematics is from Pure Reason
Kant said that classical Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, because it is based on solving visual puzzles. Kant never said that about arithmetic or algebra.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:32 am but rather mathematics is realistic because it is inferred from refined-reason where its ultimate origin is empirical.
Kant said that only about Euclidean geometry, which is indeed to some extent impure, because its straightedge-and-compass method is not pure symbol manipulation. The Euclidean method does create some kind of visual input to the problem.

But then again, this is not the case for anything else in mathematics.

Furthermore, in modern mathematics, classical Euclidean geometry has entirely been replaced by algebraic geometry, which is purely abstract and therefore pure reason.

So, yes, ancient Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, but no, modern mathematics is pure reason, as it no longer makes use of ancient Euclidean geometry.
I won't waste time on these unless you give reference from Kant to support your points.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:19 am
godelian wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:02 am Kant said that classical Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, because it is based on solving visual puzzles. Kant never said that about arithmetic or algebra.

Kant said that only about Euclidean geometry, which is indeed to some extent impure, because its straightedge-and-compass method is not pure symbol manipulation. The Euclidean method does create some kind of visual input to the problem.

But then again, this is not the case for anything else in mathematics.

Furthermore, in modern mathematics, classical Euclidean geometry has entirely been replaced by algebraic geometry, which is purely abstract and therefore pure reason.

So, yes, ancient Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, but no, modern mathematics is pure reason, as it no longer makes use of ancient Euclidean geometry.
I won't waste time on these unless you give reference from Kant to support your points.
Check Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics. You will find the following explanation:
plato.stanford.edu on "Kant on mathematics" wrote: Kant strains somewhat to explain how the mathematician constructs arithmetic and algebraic magnitudes, which are distinct from the spatial figures that are the object of geometric reasoning. Drawing a distinction between “ostensive” and “symbolic” construction, he identifies ostensive construction with the geometer’s practice of showing or displaying spatial figures, whereas symbolic construction correlates to the act of concatenating arithmetic or algebraic symbols (as when, for example, “one magnitude is to be divided by another, [mathematics] places their symbols together in accordance with the form of notation for division…”) (A717/B745) (Brittan 1992; Shabel 1998).
In "ostensive" construction, reason is tainted by solving visual puzzles. That is not pure reason. In "symbolic" construction, the problem does not occur.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:19 am
godelian wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:02 am Kant said that classical Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, because it is based on solving visual puzzles. Kant never said that about arithmetic or algebra.

Kant said that only about Euclidean geometry, which is indeed to some extent impure, because its straightedge-and-compass method is not pure symbol manipulation. The Euclidean method does create some kind of visual input to the problem.

But then again, this is not the case for anything else in mathematics.

Furthermore, in modern mathematics, classical Euclidean geometry has entirely been replaced by algebraic geometry, which is purely abstract and therefore pure reason.

So, yes, ancient Euclidean geometry is not pure reason, but no, modern mathematics is pure reason, as it no longer makes use of ancient Euclidean geometry.
I won't waste time on these unless you give reference from Kant to support your points.
Check Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics. You will find the following explanation:
plato.stanford.edu on "Kant on mathematics" wrote: Kant strains somewhat to explain how the mathematician constructs arithmetic and algebraic magnitudes, which are distinct from the spatial figures that are the object of geometric reasoning. Drawing a distinction between “ostensive” and “symbolic” construction, he identifies ostensive construction with the geometer’s practice of showing or displaying spatial figures, whereas symbolic construction correlates to the act of concatenating arithmetic or algebraic symbols (as when, for example, “one magnitude is to be divided by another, [mathematics] places their symbols together in accordance with the form of notation for division…”) (A717/B745) (Brittan 1992; Shabel 1998).
In "ostensive" construction, reason is tainted by solving visual puzzles. That is not pure reason. In "symbolic" construction, the problem does not occur.
Not sure how your above is related to my claims.

I claimed, per Kant, all mathematics are fundamentally related to the empirical via the a priori [not a posteriori].

Kant stated therein;
2.2 Kant’s answer to his question “How is Pure Mathematics Possible?”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... wPurMatPos
In each text, he follows his presentation of this distinction with a discussion of his claim that all mathematical judgments are synthetic and a priori.
There he claims, first, that “properly mathematical judgments are always a priori judgments” on the grounds that they are necessary, and so cannot be derived from experience [a posteriori] (B14). He follows this with an explanation of how such non-empirical judgments can yet be synthetic, that is, how they can serve to synthesize a subject and predicate concept rather than merely explicate or analyze a subject concept into its constituent logical parts.

Here Kant famously invokes the arithmetical proposition “7 + 5 = 12” and argues that such a judgment is synthetic. He argues negatively, claiming that “no matter how long I analyze my concept of such a possible sum [of seven and five] I will still not find twelve in it”, and also positively, claiming that “One must go beyond these concepts [of seven and five], seeking assistance in the intuition that corresponds to one of the two, one’s five fingers, say…and one after another add the units of the five given in the intuition to the concept of seven…and thus see the number 12 arise” (B15).
I have quoted the above earlier, i.e. that fundamentally it is reducible to the empirical fingers via a priori [not a posteriori].

The above prove my point.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:00 am
Note:
The above is merely one cause, there are many other causes that drive one to have a sense of God and therefrom believe God is real.
God or any other known conceptual object, will always be a belief within the believing brain...it's just a matter of fact.

No narrative of I...no I ..just simply this, absent of any concept.

Matter of fact can never know what it is, except in this conception, it's own projection of itself, albeit an illusory conception.

And so Veritas Aequitas your points are always on point, to the point there is no point in keep repeating it, it will only be the same idea put in a different way...Whatever way it's put, it will either be accepted or rejected..that choice is soley up to the reader.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:06 am
Here Kant famously invokes the arithmetical proposition “7 + 5 = 12” and argues that such a judgment is synthetic. He argues negatively, claiming that “no matter how long I analyze my concept of such a possible sum [of seven and five] I will still not find twelve in it”, and also positively, claiming that “One must go beyond these concepts [of seven and five], seeking assistance in the intuition that corresponds to one of the two, one’s five fingers, say…and one after another add the units of the five given in the intuition to the concept of seven…and thus see the number 12 arise” (B15).
In Peano Arithmetic, counting has nothing to do with fingers. It is axiomatized as pure symbol manipulation, with the following recursive definition:
Wikipedia on "definition of addition" wrote: Addition is a function that maps two natural numbers (two elements of N) to another one. It is defined recursively as:

[1] a + 0 = a
[2] a + S ( b ) = S ( a + b )
This procedure does not make use of the decimal representation or any other representation of numbers. It is independent of the actual representation of natural numbers. It rests on the axioms of zero and the existence of S(x) as the successor function. So, concerning 5+7, in a first round of recursive reduction:

5 + 7 = 5 + S( 6 ) = S( 5 + 6 ) because of [2]

This means that it recursively requires computing the expression (5 + 6):

5 + 6 = S( 5 + 5 )

Until we arrive at trying to solve 5+0 which according to [1] is equal to 5.

So, 5+7 is solved by computing S(S(...(S(S(5)))))) = S(11) = 12.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:06 am I have quoted the above earlier, i.e. that fundamentally it is reducible to the empirical fingers via a priori [not a posteriori].
The above prove my point.
No, it merely proves that you are ignorant of Peano and Dedekind's work concerning the axiomatization of arithmetic:
Wikipedia on the "axiomaization of arithmetic" wrote: The need to formalize arithmetic was not well appreciated until the work of Hermann Grassmann, who showed in the 1860s that many facts in arithmetic could be derived from more basic facts about the successor operation and induction.[1] In 1881, Charles Sanders Peirce provided an axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic.[2] In 1888, Richard Dedekind proposed another axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic, and in 1889, Peano published a simplified version of them as a collection of axioms in his book, The principles of arithmetic presented by a new method (Latin: Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita).
Giuseppe Peano and his axiomatization of arithmetic came one century after Immanuel Kant. Kant was not aware of what future work in mathematics would yield. He only knew 18th century mathematics, which was much more primitive than the 19th century version. Kant's empirical view on arithmetic was already completely outdated in the 19th century.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:06 am
Here Kant famously invokes the arithmetical proposition “7 + 5 = 12” and argues that such a judgment is synthetic. He argues negatively, claiming that “no matter how long I analyze my concept of such a possible sum [of seven and five] I will still not find twelve in it”, and also positively, claiming that “One must go beyond these concepts [of seven and five], seeking assistance in the intuition that corresponds to one of the two, one’s five fingers, say…and one after another add the units of the five given in the intuition to the concept of seven…and thus see the number 12 arise” (B15).
In Peano Arithmetic, counting has nothing to do with fingers. It is axiomatized as pure symbol manipulation, with the following recursive definition:
Wikipedia on "definition of addition" wrote: Addition is a function that maps two natural numbers (two elements of N) to another one. It is defined recursively as:

[1] a + 0 = a
[2] a + S ( b ) = S ( a + b )
This procedure does not make use of the decimal representation or any other representation of numbers. It is independent of the actual representation of natural numbers. It rests on the axioms of zero and the existence of S(x) as the successor function. So, concerning 5+7, in a first round of recursive reduction:

5 + 7 = 5 + S( 6 ) = S( 5 + 6 ) because of [2]

This means that it recursively requires computing the expression (5 + 6):

5 + 6 = S( 5 + 5 )

Until we arrive at trying to solve 5+0 which according to [1] is equal to 5.

So, 5+7 is solved by computing S(S(...(S(S(5)))))) = S(11) = 12.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:06 am I have quoted the above earlier, i.e. that fundamentally it is reducible to the empirical fingers via a priori [not a posteriori].
The above prove my point.
No, it merely proves that you are ignorant of Peano and Dedekind's work concerning the axiomatization of arithmetic:
Wikipedia on the "axiomaization of arithmetic" wrote: The need to formalize arithmetic was not well appreciated until the work of Hermann Grassmann, who showed in the 1860s that many facts in arithmetic could be derived from more basic facts about the successor operation and induction.[1] In 1881, Charles Sanders Peirce provided an axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic.[2] In 1888, Richard Dedekind proposed another axiomatization of natural-number arithmetic, and in 1889, Peano published a simplified version of them as a collection of axioms in his book, The principles of arithmetic presented by a new method (Latin: Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita).
Giuseppe Peano and his axiomatization of arithmetic came one century after Immanuel Kant. Kant was not aware of what future work in mathematics would yield. He only knew 18th century mathematics, which was much more primitive than the 19th century version. Kant's empirical view on arithmetic was already completely outdated in the 19th century.
Note, the reliance on 'natural numbers';
In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, also known as the Dedekind–Peano axioms or the Peano postulates, are axioms for the natural numbers presented by the 19th century Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano.
These axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of metamathematical investigations, including research into fundamental questions of whether number theory is consistent and complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
And Natural Numbers are related to numbers used for counting;
In mathematics, the natural numbers are those numbers used for counting (as in "there are six coins on the table") and ordering (as in "this is the third largest city in the country").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
As such counting would fall back to Kant's empirical fingers as the foundation;
2.2 Kant’s answer to his question “How is Pure Mathematics Possible?”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... wPurMatPos
In each text, he follows his presentation of this distinction with a discussion of his claim that all mathematical judgments are synthetic and a priori.
There he claims, first, that “properly mathematical judgments are always a priori judgments” on the grounds that they are necessary, and so cannot be derived from experience [a posteriori] (B14). He follows this with an explanation of how such non-empirical judgments can yet be synthetic, that is, how they can serve to synthesize a subject and predicate concept rather than merely explicate or analyze a subject concept into its constituent logical parts.

Here Kant famously invokes the arithmetical proposition “7 + 5 = 12” and argues that such a judgment is synthetic. He argues negatively, claiming that “no matter how long I analyze my concept of such a possible sum [of seven and five] I will still not find twelve in it”, and also positively, claiming that “One must go beyond these concepts [of seven and five], seeking assistance in the intuition that corresponds to one of the two, one’s five fingers, say…and one after another add the units of the five given in the intuition to the concept of seven…and thus see the number 12 arise” (B15).
As such Peano's Axioms is ultimately grounded on the empirical i.e. the fingers or other independent units.

Note I am not that stupid in asserting that mathematicians used their 'fingers' when applying Peano's Axioms which you seem to imply.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:06 am Note, the reliance on 'natural numbers';
And Natural Numbers are related to numbers used for counting;
In mathematics, the natural numbers are those numbers used for counting (as in "there are six coins on the table") and ordering (as in "this is the third largest city in the country").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
As such counting would fall back to Kant's empirical fingers as the foundation;
Finger or object counting may originally have been part of the inspiration for Peano's axioms.

However, once arithmetic has been axiomatized into PA, this inspiration no longer matters. Attachment to empiricism usually even becomes an impediment when working with the system such as PA. That is why the formalist ontology of mathematics is so important:
Wikipedia on "mathematical formalism" wrote: In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality, but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."[1] According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
So, is arithmetic theory (PA) about "counting with fingers"? No, because PA is not "about" anything at all.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:06 am Note, the reliance on 'natural numbers';
And Natural Numbers are related to numbers used for counting;
In mathematics, the natural numbers are those numbers used for counting (as in "there are six coins on the table") and ordering (as in "this is the third largest city in the country").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
As such counting would fall back to Kant's empirical fingers as the foundation;
Finger or object counting may originally have been part of the inspiration for Peano's axioms.

However, once arithmetic has been axiomatized into PA, this inspiration no longer matters. Attachment to empiricism usually even becomes an impediment when working with the system such as PA. That is why the formalist ontology of mathematics is so important:
Wikipedia on "mathematical formalism" wrote: In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality, but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."[1] According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
So, is arithmetic theory (PA) about "counting with fingers"? No, because PA is not "about" anything at all.
You don't seem to get the point.

The critical point is all mathematics statement IN PRINCIPLE from the various models and axioms must be fundamentally grounded on the empirical [drill down to fingers or empirical units] else it would be from pure reason without any empirical basis at all. [note CPR B397 which I quoted earlier].
This give mathematicians the assurance whatever their mathematical statements based on accepted axioms they are fundamentally realistic and not illusory, i.e. not nonsense.

Whatever is leveraged on pure reason alone [from Metaphysicians] will results in illusions and delusions, e.g. god. soul that survives death, square-circle, which are illusory and thus cannot be realistic at all.
Post Reply