Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Perceiving is Believing
Message-ID: <4968@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 13:00:58 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4968
Posted: Tue Mar 12 13:00:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 02:26:40 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>, <3878@umcp-cs.UUCP> <4958@cbscc.UUCP> <665@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 72


}> Obviously a caused result doesn't rule out the possibility that it
}> is proven.  But what insures that they are?  I don't see any necessary
}> connection between cause and proof?  Causing a certain number to appear on my
}> calculator by pushing buttons at random does not exclude the posibility
}> that that number is the correct answer to a particular problem.  A stopped
}> clock gives the correct time twice a day.  What elevates the level of
}> trust in our own caused judgements above the trust we would place in these
}> examples? [DUBUC]
}
}It is the very fact that the reliability can be verified independent of our
}interpretations and masking of our perceptions that makes conclusions drawn
}through such analysis trustworthy.  Of course, a deity could be running around
}saying "Oh, dear, he's just pressed 2 + 2 on his calculator: better make sure
}4 comes up as the answer, and oh, dear, there's a rock at the edge of a cliff
}in Brazil, better make sure it starts falling and with the proper acceleration
}towards the earth, and oh, dear..."  Causing everything.  I doubt that if
}such a deity existed it would not be quite so stupid.  (or would it?)  I'd
}venture that it would create a universe that worked of its own accord without
}meddling interference.  That, in either case, is the reliability we have
}seen.  If it wasn't reliable, we wouldn't be capable of talking about it.
}[Rich Rosen]

I am asking *how* the reliability can be verified independant of our
interpretations.  I am not inferring that an deity must be around to make
things work.  I am asking how your caused "natural flow" judgements jump
the gap to being "proven" judgements in the sense that they are not only
caused but true.  It's hard to beleive you are misunderstanding me without
trying.  It's this kind of evasion that is the source of my complaints
about discussing things with you, Rich.

}>>Yes, our perceptions are caused, but they are accurate anyway (at least
}>>most of the time).  Furthermore, there is
}>>a good Naturalistic explanation (based on the evolutionary advantage
}>>of accurate perceivers) of this fact -- *of course* our perceptions
}>>are mostly trustworthy: if not, we wouldn't have survived.
}
}> I don't see how survival is necessarily linked to accurate perceptions.
}
}Perhaps because of an anti-evolutionist bent?  :-?  If you can't see, hear
}or otherwise perceive correctly the tiger coming at you, you're going to
}be eaten!!!  Those organisms with incredibly faulty perceptions don't seem
}to survive.  The ones with the keenest perceptive accuracy, if combined with
}other abilities, be the most likely to survive.

All perceptions are not directly related to survival.  I may percieve
that I will die if a tiger is chasing me and run, but that does not prevent
some other unrelated event from doing me in (e.g. diving into a lake full
piranha to get away from the tiger).  Perceiving one thing correctly and
drawing the right conclusion, does not mean I will perceive things correctly
in general. How do instances of correct perception give one the ability
to perceive correctly?  Also, I could think of example where incorrect
perceptions result in survival.  If I had incorrectly perceived that
it was raining outside, I may never have taken a walk in jungle in the
first place where I met the tiger.

}> Also, you treat accurate perception as
}> an ability.  Does the accuracy of my perception in one instance imply
}> that I generally make accurate perceptions?  Again this ability seems
}> independant of "natural flow".
}
}How so?  On the contrary, it is very much inextricably linked to the "natural
}flow", whether that flow has an intent or not.  It is a part of it.  You seem
}to be bogged down in assuming things about this flow vis a vis intent and
}directed purpose, which was my point earlier in the article.

And you seem hard pressed to give me a good explanation of how something
that is caused by natural flow can make perceptions about itself in
any detached manner.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd