Don`t ask me!
// January 30th, 2008 // No Comments » // Chris
The discussion
For the past few years I have been having an ongoing discussion with a close friend about logic, experience, and the relative nature of our existence.
It should be noted that this discussion is just that – it is not an argument or even a debate really. We have mutual respect for each others opinions, and I think we both have a willingness to listen and change based on our discussions.
He argues that he bases his belief system (typically in the religious/moral sense) based on his experiences and what I describe as his world view. He is convinced that his beliefs are based on his experiences.
I argue that this is a terrible method to obtain a set or even a single belief, as our experiences are all clouded by all previous experiences whether those be conscious ones or sub-conscious ones. To describe a quick summary, what we perceive the world to be is not what the world is because we have no choice but to see it from our world view. Quantum mechanics has shown us that even the act of observing by definition changes the phenomenon we observe.
This is a very short summary of the discussion but represents the crux of the matter and we continue to engage in this discussion.
Objectivist Epistemology
Recently I picked up a copy of Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I have read 2 of her novels, Atlas Shrugged and Fountain Head but I think I have now read all of what she describes as Objectivist Tutorials – I do not have a comprehensive list at the moment.
I have enjoyed this most recent read, and in the summary of this introduction, a colleague of hers describes that knowledge is gained by applying logic to experience. He elaborates by describing that we are all born with a blank slate of experience (there is some evidence of course of certain hard wiring in humans, but I am sticking to more world view type experiences here at the moment). That is to say out world view consists completely of what we experience in our lives from our 5 senses.
New Insight?
It follows that it is then up to us to apply logic to these experiences to validate, discover and create our belief system. My new insight is simply that I guess it is obvious that I agree with my friend now that yes, experiences do and should (by definition) provide the basis for a belief system. However, I also suggest that one of my experiences is that experiences can not and should not always be trusted – fun.
New Problems?
My other problems with this idea of applying logic to experiences as opposed to the alternative of finding experiences to match some logical deduction or induction is that what is logic if not itself based on experience? I struggle to believe in a universal non-trivial logical structure, those of you who are reading this that are married, just ask your spouse 
My final beef is simply that how do you define the scope of an experience? What is a single experience anyhow?!? I think there is strong evidence that each new experience we encounter is clouded from that all other experience, back to even that first suckle, or non-suckle on the tit.
Conclusion
In the end I think I have made a small step in understanding my friend’s perspective on experience as the basis for belief. I will now be able to agree with him, but still disagree in general
Keep thinking, keep learning, and now I am happy to say keep experiencing as well!
