From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:30:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.131914.8194@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>  
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.030021.7771@nmsu.edu> epowers@dewey (POWERS)  
writes:
> >In article <1993Jan19.180420.14477@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>  
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:


 Having said
> that, you seem to imply at other points in your post that such 100%  
certain
> knowledge isn't possible in principle, supernatural or no, so I wonder
> whether I have misunderstood your position.

	I couldn't say that, no.  I do think 100% certainty is possible,  
but not within the context of science, where we pretty much just disprove  
the worse of two hypotheses.  We'll get to this, I'm sure!


  An example of a self-contradictory thought is  
> > "I cannot know anything with 100% certainty", because, to say this, I  
> > would have to be 100% certain that it was true.
> 
> Well, we very nearly agree on what the problem is, but not on how to  
react
> to it. There are clearly problems raised by the idea of 100% certainty,  
and
> thus the whole realm of black'n'white language  
(`true',`false',`proof',`know',
> and the like). But I see no need to panic and resort to supernature when  
just
> the rephrasing of your example as "I *probably* cannot know anything  
with 100%
> certainty" will do, and is internally consistent, and is closer to being
> appropriate language for the kinds of stuff neurons do anyway (more  
below).
> 
> 
> >	The reason I can't accept the idea that all phenomena are the  
> > result of natural occurrences is that it leads me to say that I can't  
> > trust my own thoughts, which I reject on the basis that it throws me  
into  
> > an infinite loop, and also contradicts the inherent assumption I had  
at  
> > first that I could trust my own thoughts (at least to some extent).
> 
> Does the contradiction go away if you *probably* can't trust your  
thoughts?
> I would have thought it does.


	I don't see that it does.  Exactly how "probably" is "probably"?   
Oh, dear, that's poorly phrased.  Well, what is the ratio of true thoughts  
to untrue ones on average, in the human brain?  And how likely is it that  
your statement "I probably can't trust my thoughts" is not a brainfart, a  
neural misfiring?  Also, if neurobiological data, on examination by  
brilliant human minds using statistical tests also conceived by brilliant  
human minds seem to indicate an untrustworthiness of the human mind, do we  
toss the mind, or the data, or the method?
	Actually, I think saying "I probably can't trust my thoughts" is  
in every way as bad as saying "I cannot trust my thoughts".  We still have  
no way of distinguishing between true thoughts and false thoughts.  At  
very least, any method we come up is "probably" wrong.



 Furthermore, this is as much certainty as can
> be expected if thoughts are purely natural phenomena anyway, since  
neurons
> are very noisy things with finite bandwidth and all sorts of drift and
> instability. But that's OK, because they're only required to do  
statistical
> stuff to within acceptable limits of accuracy. You can't expect better  
than
> `probably' out of a bunch of neurons, and the apparent contradictions  
arise
> when you get into rigid language which is inappropriate for describing
> thought if indeed thought is the operation of such natural and  
statistical
> processes.

	That sounds just like what happens when we try to discuss various  
aspects of "God".  "Rigid language that is inappropriate for  
describing..."  I like that!
> 
>

> 
> I think the problem lies right here in the natural world, and in the  
rather
> paradoxical tendency for large groups of neurons, working statistically,  
to
> decide that they want to treat everything as black and white. Our  
conscious
> brains are just *so* much happier with the language of sharp divisions.

	"How sure are you of this, and why?"  I think if you try to answer  
this, you'll eventually come down to the idea that you have to trust your  
thoughts at some level.  Otherwise, you can't get anywhere.  Or is there  
something I missed?

					Erik Powers 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Simon
> 
PS Apologies to Ray Ingles for misunderstanding his position last time  
round.
The leg's in the post.

	I hope you didn't send it by United Postal Service.  The last time  
my family had a large chunk of meat shipped to them, UPS never put it in a  
freezer.  The bacteria had a great time, but I'd hate to see Ray's  
disappointment if your beautiful limb got all slimy that way.