The Most Fundamental Question of Existence

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The Most Fundamental Question of Existence

Why is there something rather than nothing?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, it's speculative. But it is no more speculative than the "many worlds" interpretation which Bob is peddling.

Whether it is "supernatural" or not depends on how you define "natural." If you define a "natural explanation" to be a "physical explanation," then this is a supernatural explanation because free will is determining the initial conditions of the universe.

That is nonsense.

The particular version of the MWI that I described is a mental model that attempts to help us understand how the Quantum wave-function math might 'work' in some sense that we might be able to grasp.

The MWI is not speculative? Give me a break. Your "brother in arms" considers all QM interpretatons as nothing more than mental masturbation. That would include the "many worlds" interpretation too.

I didn't actually deny that it is "speculative". As part of a theory "explaining" QM, of course it would be speculative. That does not detract from its use as a mental model to help us see one possible way some aspects of QM might 'work', especially the version I am referring to as described in the book "Shroedinger's Rabbits: the Many worlds of Quantum", by Colin Bruce.

All theories are ultimately just models of reality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

My take is that we don't have any idea about the nature of QM. We have a statistical model of the behavior. That's it.

Any conjecture based on propositions of the nature of QM are nothing more than mental wanking

.

The "many worlds" interpretation is vaguely interesting in an SF sort-of-way, but otherwise has no more ontological relevance than god literally playing dice with each quantum event

.

It would appear that you believe that MWI qualifies as nothing more than a metaphysical belief.

Uhm... no. It's not a "belief" of any sort. It's a proposition based on insufficient evidence. Just like a lot of ideas floating around the observations of quantum mechanics, including those I tend to like. It might be a "metaphysical proposition," but I have far less respect for metaphysics than I do actual science-based propositions. As far as the MWI goes, it at least fits observations.

And this is one of the many reasons you are not good at "arguing" at all. You constantly misrepresent what people say and think, and twist them in a fashion that better suits your purpose. You don't care whether you represent their actual views and thoughts. You don't care whether you understand exactly what they say. You only care about twisting their words in a way that you can "argue" against.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Identifying our areas of ignorance is an important task. Knowing what to do with that ignorance is also an important task. What you do, Paisley, is to take our areas of ignorance and insert your own special biases. This is fine: that's really what we all do.

If you believe it is fine and that everyone else does it too (including yourself), then why the personal attack?

Because you attack. You do so be being an insufferable arrogant prick. You do so by misrepresenting the viewpoints of others, for no other purpose than to have an argument. Because you have no other purpose than to argue. You don't wish to discuss. You don't wish to understand. You only wish to make yourself feel good by pretending that you are actually winning an argument, when in fact all you're doing is ignoring or misrepresenting everyone else.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Talking to an actual philosopher over the last month, I've gained new respect for philosophy. I used you as a model of why I thought philosophy was a ten-pound bag of pustulent puppies, Paisley. (Hah! Alliteration.) After describing your approach to philosophy, he laughed and said, "Yeah. Actual philosophers hate these guys too. They can read the words, but they can't synthesize meaning. And they don't understand the limits or purpose of philosophy."

I see. You were evidently so distraught by my complete dismantling of your materialist worldview that you desperately sought professional help by paying a visit to an academic philosopher.

Uhm, no. This is just you being an arrogant prick again.

I was in another forum. I haven't even been hanging out here on RRS for a while; I've been far too busy in my personal life. In this other forum, the subject of philosophy came up, and several of us piled on. A professional philosopher asked, "Why are you all shitting on philosophy?" The several of us all had similar stories, in which we have encountered people (several here on RRS, for me -- you are neither the first, the last, nor the best) who used philosophy in obviously idiotic ways. I used your as an example, because you are very simple and easy to summarize.

The philosopher explained that you are like those people who have a BRILLIANT SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH, like perpetual motion, or the cube nature of time. You do not use philosophy any more than those yahoos use science. And then he explained the actual modern purpose of philosophy: it's to think about thinking. Secondarily, it is also useful for helping to define areas of interest for science. Philosophers tend to explore interesting areas before science. And here, he said, is the danger: too many philosophers think they are actually discovering ontologically-relevant knowledge, rather than simply expanding the potential set of propositions.

Quote:

Philosophy is about making an argument. I am very good at making an argument; you are not. If this is point of contention for you, then I suggest you sharpen your debating skills by learning how to craft a a more cogent argument rather than engaging in the juvenile behavior of flinging ad hominem attacks and throwing hissy fits. Also, I will hasten to add that I have never made a scientific claim or philosophical claim that I did not support by citing a reliable source. I wish I could say the same for you and others on this forum.

You think pretty highly of yourself, don't you?

No, philosophy is not about making an argument. And you are not very good at making an argument, In fact, you are quite terrible at it. Your "argument" style is simple: take a few words out of context, ignore the actual meaning, pretend you know what the fuck you are talking about, and never listen to anyone who tries to correct your vast misunderstanding. This is "argument" only in the Monty Python sense.

And many people have posted links, which you subsequently ignore. Sometimes, it's the very links you use to quote-mine series of words which you then use to misrepresent either the intent or the science of the article you quote.

Also, please learn the difference between and ad hominem and an insult, you fucking retard.

Quote:

Martin Heidegger (philosopher who specialized in ontology) considered the question "why is there something rather the nothing" to be the most fundamental question in philosophy. (Martin Heidegger is arguably the most influential philosopher within the last century.) 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Sure. I don't give a fuck about the must fundamental question in philosophy. Your problem here is mistaking a philosophical ontology (that is, people thinking about shit) with the scientific ontology (the knowledge people gain by actually studying the universe). In the actual study of the universe (rather than just thinking about thinking), the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has no meaning whatsoever.

The question should be, "How did the universe come into existence?" And that question is currently providing very interesting knowledge. Knowledge Heidegger didn't have.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Nigel, I would just like to

Nigel, I would just like to say your description of 'philosophy' is very much in accord with my own.

I have often explicitly thought of it as 'thinking about thinking', and it does have some value in that context, just not all that much direct help toward gaining 'real' knowledge about the Universe, that requires actual studying it, carefully and methodically (ie scientifically).

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Philisophical Fundamentals

Pais,

You seem to be using philosophy to put the cart before the horse.  Philosophy does indeed come up with questions an ideas, but unless the question is even relevant, moving forward with the philsophical discussion is moot.

The reason I got my degree in philosophy was to find the root causes of critical thinking.  Critical thinking is what lead to math and science (which are both root words that mean the same thing: knowledge.  Math comes from Greek and Science comes from Latin).  Logic was the tool that was founded to verify that ideas were sound and reasonable to believe.  This is where Aristotle made the first breakthrough, and actually applies to science.  Aristotilian logic comes from the basic syllogism:

A --> B

C --> A

:. C --> B

Where A is a class, B is a trait, and C is a member of A. 

Where you seem to fail is that you are putting the cart before the horse.  The purpose of philosophy isn't to create an argument.  The purpose of philosophy is to come up with ideas from fundamental questions.  The argument is the result of testing the soundness of an idea.  What you seem to do is what many beginning philosophers tend to do, which is to come up with an idea that you feel MUST be true, then fit an argument by using wordplay and twists in order to fit your conclusion, even if the idea isn't sound.  The problem is that with an unsound idea that you feel MUST be true, you are forced to come up with unsound logic to support the idea.  In short, you fail.

If you are to do the reasoning properly, you would come up with an idea, then come up with a reason why the idea makes sense, then support the claim with evidence that is derived from the major premise.  Take for example the Declaration of Independence.  The founding fathers believed that King George should be overthrown (in America at least), but why?  The answer was that King George was a tyrant.  From there, the major premise is that all tyrants should be overthrown.  So, you end up with the following argument:

All tyrants should be overthrown

King George is a tyrant

:. King George should be overthrown.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, the evidence that is cited fits the major and minor premises.  THis argument was intended to be served to the British subjects as a reason for leaving the British Crown.

You will also notice that in the Declaration of Independence, there is no wordplay, twists, or drawing conclusions to support the argument.  Something that you do on a consistent basis.  Also notice that no where in the D of I does the author refer to the King as "an idiot".  Just sayin'...

But what is most important about the D of I is that it answers a fundamental question about the state of affairs in America at the time.  This is another reason I got into philosophy.  There are some questions that aren't fully answered by the scientific method, such as problems in the US regarding institutional racism, politics, etc.  However, pure philosophy may be used, for example, to ask "What is the cause of institutional racism in the US?", but it does not produce an actionable set of items once the answer is found.  This is where the realms of politics and policy come into play.  This is also why philosophy can only get so far; it brings the idea to the table and then you must present a sound argument for the idea, but after that, you need to use another method in order to obtain actionable items.

For example, I work as a network engineer.  A customer complains of network slowness.  The philosophical side would be to ask the question "what is causing the slowness?"  However, once the answer is found, then the engineering side must produce a solution with actionable items to correct the slowness.  Simply going in to the customer and saying "Your network is slow because of STP issues on layer 2" would not be enough.  I would need to come up with a plan that would eliminate the STP issues.

This is why the question you posed is as useful as the question that I posed: Why do I like waffles?  Is there any actionable items that can come from the question "Why do I like waffes?"  Not really, so the question is moot.  Nigel's question, however, of "How did the universe come into existence?" provides a means to increase knowledge about the universe, how it works, how it may have started, and where it may go.  Your question is mental masturbation.  It is a problem that most beginning philosophers have, and why many are seen as "ivory tower acedemics" by the masses.  This is what lead me out of philosophy and into other disciplines.  Philosophy gives a good starting point, but it doesn't actually give an end result unless you are willing to ask the right questions in the first place.  Questions that provide more than "coffee talk", but actualy come up with ways to change the world and provide more knowledge.  This was the orginal intent of philosophy, but once you find a reason for an idea (people need sound homes to survive), you need to bring in another expert to make the idea actionable (the architect).

EDIT: To bring that back full circle with the D of I, this argument was for why America should break from the British Crown.  Clearly, the D of I doesn't provide the how, to which the obvious answer is a violent revolution.  This is where the American military generals would then provide the knowledge to defeat the British.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Nigel, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

Nigel, I would just like to say your description of 'philosophy' is very much in accord with my own.

I have often explicitly thought of it as 'thinking about thinking', and it does have some value in that context, just not all that much direct help toward gaining 'real' knowledge about the Universe, that requires actual studying it, carefully and methodically (ie scientifically).

When the philosopher gave me that phrase, I realized I had been unfair to philosophy. There is value to a constant meta-evaluation of science (both the epistemology and the ontology). There is also value in discussions of ethics, and even a certain amount of value in discussing the perennial favorite, "What are viable purposes we might take for ourselves?" (As opposed to the more traditional, 'What is our purpose?')

I also realized the misuse of philosophy is no more the fault of philosophy than the misuse of science is the result of science. It's the fault of those attempting to practice the discipline with no concept of the tools of the discipline, nor the strengths and weaknesses of the discipline. The philosopher used Plantinga's cringe-inducing misuse of modal logic as an example of professional malfeasance; and Plantinga has half a clue what's he's about, most of the time.

These discussions in which the various philosophic ontologies are conflated with the scientific ontology are tedious and unproductive. It gets even worse when one side of the discussion constantly attempts to muddy the waters by presenting a series of strawmen.

The example above, where Paisley tried to set our statements concerning MWI in opposition, is a perfect example. As you pointed out, we are not in contradiction. But even if we were, it's not as if our opinions on MWI had any bearing on either the usefulness of MWI as a model, or its congruence (or lack thereof, whichever it is) with reality. It's as if our collective ignorance of the specific nature of QM represents, not a void in epistemology, but a void in the ontology of QM. And he uses his "god of the gaps" to fill it in.

If his arguments weren't so tediously predictable, and his attitude so impervious to counter evidence, these discussions might be fun and enlightening.

His concept of "materialism" is a strawman and does not represent modern concepts of materialism. This is a bit unfair of the materialists (by whatever name). Our definition of "materialism" evolves to encompass our observations of the universe, including the statistical model of QM. We get to claim any model of the universe that evolves, as long as that model does not include some outside intelligence that is not a direct result of the systems of natural interactions we call "reality." This leaves dualists with narrower and narrower wiggle room as we discover the natural processes that make up things like intelligence.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Como Nigel and Bob, paisley

Como Nigel and Bob, paisley is got to be one of the more predictable people on this board, it's always the same, make erroneous statements about what others believe in, misinterpret or give completely illogical or vague definitions to the terms that s/he is using so vague that it has no actual meaning in the way paisley uses the word or terms paisley proposes. I must agree with your definition of philosophy as well, however philosophical arguments doesn't mean what your arguing is actually true or even the entire proposition of it has to be true, I have gotten to hear some nice philosophical debates between theists about the nature of god, doesn't mean that god exists, nor that their views are actually true about god if god even exists. It just means they are thinking and exchanging their ideas and trying to expand on various ideas/topics/concepts that we as a society deal with. But it by no means is actual fact.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Como Nigel

latincanuck wrote:

Como Nigel and Bob, paisley is got to be one of the more predictable people on this board, it's always the same, make erroneous statements about what others believe in, misinterpret or give completely illogical or vague definitions to the terms that s/he is using so vague that it has no actual meaning in the way paisley uses the word or terms paisley proposes. I must agree with your definition of philosophy as well, however philosophical arguments doesn't mean what your arguing is actually true or even the entire proposition of it has to be true, I have gotten to hear some nice philosophical debates between theists about the nature of god, doesn't mean that god exists, nor that their views are actually true about god if god even exists. It just means they are thinking and exchanging their ideas and trying to expand on various ideas/topics/concepts that we as a society deal with. But it by no means is actual fact.

You hit the nail on the proverbial head.  Many philosophers simply think for the sake of thinking, but that by itself doesn't answer if what you are thinking about is relevant, let alone based on a false premise.

Therein lies our problem with Paisley.  He has a certainty about his worldview, and he has a certainty about an atheist worldview, so he has to play word games and ignore evidence to prove his false premise.  But as many of us have pointed out there is no atheist worldview.  Simply a common thread that we all lack a belief in god(s).  So he goes on and on about a worldview that supposedly all atheists share (his version of materialism), and then shows how that must be wrong, so atheism is wrong.  If all he would simply understand is that the burdon of proof lies on the person making the claim, and that the burdon of proof for god(s) has not been sufficiently shown, he would understand the atheist view.  But instead he comes away with trite turns of phrase and little "ah ha!" moments that doesn't really amount to much.  Great, you found some problem with one of the pieces of evidence with QM.  Ok, how about addressing the other thousands of pieces of evidence that support it?  Negation of one piece (however strong or weak) doesn't negate the whole lot.

Atheism != worldview, Paisley.  Actually, this goes out to Fonzie and FS as well.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, it's speculative. But it is no more speculative than the "many worlds" interpretation which Bob is peddling.

Whether it is "supernatural" or not depends on how you define "natural." If you define a "natural explanation" to be a "physical explanation," then this is a supernatural explanation because free will is determining the initial conditions of the universe.

That is nonsense.

The particular version of the MWI that I described is a mental model that attempts to help us understand how the Quantum wave-function math might 'work' in some sense that we might be able to grasp.

The MWI is not speculative? Give me a break. Your "brother in arms" considers all QM interpretatons as nothing more than mental masturbation. That would include the "many worlds" interpretation too.

I didn't actually deny that it is "speculative".

Yes, you did. I agreed with "Xtremist" that the "Participatory Universe" was speculative, but no more than the MWI. You said that was nonsense.

BobSpence1 wrote:

As part of a theory "explaining" QM, of course it would be speculative. That does not detract from its use as a mental model to help us see one possible way some aspects of QM might 'work', especially the version I am referring to as described in the book "Shroedinger's Rabbits: the Many worlds of Quantum", by Colin Bruce.

All theories are ultimately just models of reality.

MWI is not a scientific theory. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't make one prediction. It's merely metaphysical speculation. And the only reason you prefer it over other interpretations of QM is because of your materialistic bias.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, it's speculative. But it is no more speculative than the "many worlds" interpretation which Bob is peddling.

Whether it is "supernatural" or not depends on how you define "natural." If you define a "natural explanation" to be a "physical explanation," then this is a supernatural explanation because free will is determining the initial conditions of the universe.

That is nonsense.

The particular version of the MWI that I described is a mental model that attempts to help us understand how the Quantum wave-function math might 'work' in some sense that we might be able to grasp.

The MWI is not speculative? Give me a break. Your "brother in arms" considers all QM interpretatons as nothing more than mental masturbation. That would include the "many worlds" interpretation too.

I didn't actually deny that it is "speculative".

Yes, you did. I agreed with "Xtremist" that the "Participatory Universe" was speculative, but no more than the MWI. You said that was nonsense.

BobSpence1 wrote:

As part of a theory "explaining" QM, of course it would be speculative. That does not detract from its use as a mental model to help us see one possible way some aspects of QM might 'work', especially the version I am referring to as described in the book "Shroedinger's Rabbits: the Many worlds of Quantum", by Colin Bruce.

All theories are ultimately just models of reality.

MWI is not a scientific theory. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't make one prediction. It's merely metaphysical speculation. And the only reason you prefer it over other interpretations of QM is because of your materialistic bias.

"Speculative" if treated as a theory, but that is not even an applicable term if MWI treated as away of thinking about the implications etc of QM, as I have been using it.

And I agree, it doesn't make predictions, etc., and I am not putting it forward as even a hypothesis, I have made that clear repeatedly - it is way of trying to bridge between the utterly counter-intuitive implications of QM and some concepts we can make some sort of sense of.

I prefer the particular version I referred to because it answers one of the biggest objections to other MWI's by avoiding the infinitely growing 'space' of all the 'possible' worlds. WTF has a 'materialist' world-view got to do with it??

'Materialism' does not require determinism, that was an assumption based on early thinking of materialism only in terms of ordinary mechanical systems, and assuming that any purely material mechanism would be totally predictable. Since chaos theory first put a crack in that idea, then quantum scale systems demonstrated that even purely material entities, atoms and their components regularly displayed strictly random, 'indeterministic' behaviour , as in radioactive decay events, modern materialism/physicalism has had to modify that initial assumption. That is how scientific knowledge grows, by adjusting theories to accomodate new data.

So rather than QM demolishing 'materialism', 'materialism' incorporated the findings of QM into its assumptions about how 'matter' can behave. 

The one key assumption in science/physicalism/materialism is that reality will not be capricious in the way it could be if it was being influenced by some ultimate sentience. Because if that were true, any 'law' or expectation of consistent behaviour from one second to the next would have to cast into doubt. We might as well give up the whole scientific enterprise, because we would effectively be trying to 'second-guess' a vastly greater 'intelligence' than our own.

But since we have managed to make enormous progress in uncovering ever more accurate and consistent 'laws' and theories, it seems that even if there is some sort of deity 'out there', it doesn't appear to intervene in our Universe, so we can safely ignore it in our investigations.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It would appear that you believe that MWI qualifies as nothing more than a metaphysical belief.

Uhm... no. It's not a "belief" of any sort. It's a proposition based on insufficient evidence. Just like a lot of ideas floating around the observations of quantum mechanics, including those I tend to like. It might be a "metaphysical proposition," but I have far less respect for metaphysics than I do actual science-based propositions. As far as the MWI goes, it at least fits observations.

Metaphysical proposition? I can live with that. A metaphysical proposition is something that can be accepted or rejected.

nigelTheBold wrote:

And this is one of the many reasons you are not good at "arguing" at all. You constantly misrepresent what people say and think, and twist them in a fashion that better suits your purpose. You don't care whether you represent their actual views and thoughts. You don't care whether you understand exactly what they say. You only care about twisting their words in a way that you can "argue" against.

I misrepresented what you said? I said that it APPEARS that you believe that MWI qualifies as nothing more than a metaphysical belief. And you corrected me by saying "no"...it might qualify as a metaphysical proposition, but not as a metaphysical belief. LOL!

We both know what you're attempting to do here. It's called "damage control." Why are you in engaging in this tactic? Because I have made it abundantly clear in a previous post that you have just implied that your "comrade in arms" (i.e. Bob) is a "wanker." 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If you believe it is fine and that everyone else does it too (including yourself), then why the personal attack?

Because you attack. You do so be being an insufferable arrogant prick. You do so by misrepresenting the viewpoints of others, for no other purpose than to have an argument. Because you have no other purpose than to argue. You don't wish to discuss. You don't wish to understand. You only wish to make yourself feel good by pretending that you are actually winning an argument, when in fact all you're doing is ignoring or misrepresenting everyone else.

This is a debate forum. This should be evident to anyone who is capable of reading the title - "Atheist vs. Theist." If you lack the emotional fortitude to engage in this type of activity, then I suggest you should not participate in this forum.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I see. You were evidently so distraught by my complete dismantling of your materialist worldview that you desperately sought professional help by paying a visit to an academic philosopher.

Uhm, no. This is just you being an arrogant prick again.

I was in another forum. I haven't even been hanging out here on RRS for a while; I've been far too busy in my personal life. In this other forum, the subject of philosophy came up, and several of us piled on. A professional philosopher asked, "Why are you all shitting on philosophy?" The several of us all had similar stories, in which we have encountered people (several here on RRS, for me -- you are neither the first, the last, nor the best) who used philosophy in obviously idiotic ways. I used your as an example, because you are very simple and easy to summarize.

The philosopher explained that you are like those people who have a BRILLIANT SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH, like perpetual motion, or the cube nature of time. You do not use philosophy any more than those yahoos use science. And then he explained the actual modern purpose of philosophy: it's to think about thinking. Secondarily, it is also useful for helping to define areas of interest for science. Philosophers tend to explore interesting areas before science. And here, he said, is the danger: too many philosophers think they are actually discovering ontologically-relevant knowledge, rather than simply expanding the potential set of propositions.

That you refer to me on other forums simply reveals that I am getting under your skin.

Quote:

Philosophy is about making an argument. I am very good at making an argument; you are not. If this is point of contention for you, then I suggest you sharpen your debating skills by learning how to craft a a more cogent argument rather than engaging in the juvenile behavior of flinging ad hominem attacks and throwing hissy fits. Also, I will hasten to add that I have never made a scientific claim or philosophical claim that I did not support by citing a reliable source. I wish I could say the same for you and others on this forum.

You're projecting again.

nigelTheBold wrote:

No, philosophy is not about making an argument. And you are not very good at making an argument, In fact, you are quite terrible at it. Your "argument" style is simple: take a few words out of context, ignore the actual meaning, pretend you know what the fuck you are talking about, and never listen to anyone who tries to correct your vast misunderstanding. This is "argument" only in the Monty Python sense.

And many people have posted links, which you subsequently ignore. Sometimes, it's the very links you use to quote-mine series of words which you then use to misrepresent either the intent or the science of the article you quote.

Also, please learn the difference between and ad hominem and an insult, you fucking retard.

An "ad hominem" is a personal attack employed as a counterargument. Flinging ad hominem attacks and personal insults is your M.O.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Martin Heidegger (philosopher who specialized in ontology) considered the question "why is there something rather the nothing" to be the most fundamental question in philosophy. (Martin Heidegger is arguably the most influential philosopher within the last century.) 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Sure. I don't give a fuck about the must fundamental question in philosophy. Your problem here is mistaking a philosophical ontology (that is, people thinking about shit) with the scientific ontology (the knowledge people gain by actually studying the universe). In the actual study of the universe (rather than just thinking about thinking), the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has no meaning whatsoever.

The question should be, "How did the universe come into existence?" And that question is currently providing very interesting knowledge. Knowledge Heidegger didn't have.

Whether you give  a "fuck" about the question is irrelevant. Previously, you implied that the question I posed in the OP of this thread had nothing to do with serious philosophy (apparently because you had learned so much about philosophy from an online encounter with a "professional" philosopher). Well, I corrected you. It is  probably the most fundamental question of philosophy. And I just cited the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" to back that claim.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Whether you give  a

Quote:

Whether you give  a "fuck" about the question is irrelevant. Previously, you implied that the question I posed in the OP of this thread had nothing to do with serious philosophy (apparently because you had learned so much about philosophy from an online encounter with a "professional" philosopher). Well, I corrected you. It is  probably the most fundamental question of philosophy. And I just cited the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" to back that claim.

You are correct...up until the 20th century.  Many 20th century philosophers (most notably Bertrand Russell) actually considered the question to be moot and of little relevance.  Most Logical Positivists would see philosophy as having a very narrow scope, mostly in linguistics and natural phenomenon (more in line with science, actually).  The question is relevant when learning ancient and early modern philosophy, but contemporary philosophy really drives away from that question and looks at more relevant questions.

IMHO, this was necessary for philisophical thought to not only survive, but to find relevance in a modern world.  In that realm, philosophy is much like science.  It has reshaped and rethought itself in order to keep pace with modern times.  This is a GOOD thing.

 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

MWI is not a scientific theory. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't make one prediction. It's merely metaphysical speculation. And the only reason you prefer it over other interpretations of QM is because of your materialistic bias.

"Speculative" if treated as a theory, but that is not even an applicable term if MWI treated as away of thinking about the implications etc of QM, as I have been using it.

And I agree, it doesn't make predictions, etc., and I am not putting it forward as even a hypothesis, I have made that clear repeatedly - it is way of trying to bridge between the utterly counter-intuitive implications of QM and some concepts we can make some sort of sense of.

If it doesn't make any predictions, then it qualifies as a metaphysical interpretation. All interpretations of QM are metaphysical. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this?

BobSpence1 wrote:

I prefer the particular version I referred to because it answers one of the biggest objections to other MWI's by avoiding the infinitely growing 'space' of all the 'possible' worlds. WTF has a 'materialist' world-view got to do with it??

Does MWI explain away all the anomalies of QM (e.g. quantum indeterminacy, particle/wave duality, entanglement and nonlocality)?

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Materialism' does not require determinism, that was an assumption based on early thinking of materialism only in terms of ordinary mechanical systems, and assuming that any purely material mechanism would be totally predictable. Since chaos theory first put a crack in that idea, then quantum scale systems demonstrated that even purely material entities, atoms and their components regularly displayed strictly random, 'indeterministic' behaviour , as in radioactive decay events, modern materialism/physicalism has had to modify that initial assumption. That is how scientific knowledge grows, by adjusting theories to accomodate new data.

So rather than QM demolishing 'materialism', 'materialism' incorporated the findings of QM into its assumptions about how 'matter' can behave

Materialists are simply moving the "goal posts." If quantum indeterminacy is true, then there is no physical explanation for physical events occurring uncaused. If quantum entanglement and nonlocality are true, then there is no physical explanation for these anomalies. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

The one key assumption in science/physicalism/materialism is that reality will not be capricious in the way it could be if it was being influenced by some ultimate sentience. Because if that were true, any 'law' or expectation of consistent behaviour from one second to the next would have to cast into doubt. We might as well give up the whole scientific enterprise, because we would effectively be trying to 'second-guess' a vastly greater 'intelligence' than our own.

You are conflating "scientism" and "scientific materialism" with "science." they are not the same. The former are metaphysical positions or ideologies, the latter is a methodology. Also, science is not inherently atheistic.

BobSpence1 wrote:

But since we have managed to make enormous progress in uncovering ever more accurate and consistent 'laws' and theories, it seems that even if there is some sort of deity 'out there', it doesn't appear to intervene in our Universe, so we can safely ignore it in our investigations.

You are assuming that this "greater intelligence" would behave spontaneosly or on a whim. If so, then I must logically conclude that you must believe all forms of conscious intelligence (e.g. human intelligence) are inherently random. The upshot of all this is that your objection here actually qualifies as indirect argument against your own mechanical worldview. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

MWI is not a scientific theory. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't make one prediction. It's merely metaphysical speculation. And the only reason you prefer it over other interpretations of QM is because of your materialistic bias.

"Speculative" if treated as a theory, but that is not even an applicable term if MWI treated as away of thinking about the implications etc of QM, as I have been using it.

And I agree, it doesn't make predictions, etc., and I am not putting it forward as even a hypothesis, I have made that clear repeatedly - it is way of trying to bridge between the utterly counter-intuitive implications of QM and some concepts we can make some sort of sense of.

If it doesn't make any predictions, then it qualifies as a metaphysical interpretation. All interpretations of QM are metaphysical. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this?

 

Because 'metaphysical' is a pointless qualification. Metaphysics as a 'discipline' is even emptier than 'Philosophy'. I don't care about such irrelevant labels. I have described what the value of the particular MWI I prefer is more than once. If you still don't 'get it', too bad for you.

Quote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

I prefer the particular version I referred to because it answers one of the biggest objections to other MWI's by avoiding the infinitely growing 'space' of all the 'possible' worlds. WTF has a 'materialist' world-view got to do with it??

Does MWI explain away all the anomalies of QM (e.g. quantum indeterminacy, particle/wave duality, entanglement and nonlocality)?

I never claimed it 'explained away' anything. It does help me think about those other issues. To repeat, as I use it, it is NOT an explanation as such, it is a model which helps me conceptualize one way of thinking about QM.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Materialism' does not require determinism, that was an assumption based on early thinking of materialism only in terms of ordinary mechanical systems, and assuming that any purely material mechanism would be totally predictable. Since chaos theory first put a crack in that idea, then quantum scale systems demonstrated that even purely material entities, atoms and their components regularly displayed strictly random, 'indeterministic' behaviour , as in radioactive decay events, modern materialism/physicalism has had to modify that initial assumption. That is how scientific knowledge grows, by adjusting theories to accomodate new data.

So rather than QM demolishing 'materialism', 'materialism' incorporated the findings of QM into its assumptions about how 'matter' can behave

Materialists are simply moving the "goal posts." If quantum indeterminacy is true, then there is no physical explanation for physical events occurring uncaused. If quantum entanglement and nonlocality are true, then there is no physical explanation for these anomalies. 

'Moving the goal-posts' is an honest response to the revelation of previously  unsuspected aspects of physical reality. We don't have an explanation of why decay happens in a purely random manner, but it is an observed and well-described and characterized physical phenomena. Lack of a known physical cause does not make it non-physical. What is the physical explanation for 'mass' and the principle of conservation of mass/energy? At some point, we reach some fundamental aspects of reality, which defy further analysis or reduction, at least for now. At this stage, the random aspect of quantum phenomena probably has to be treated as one of these. This is all part of the history of physics.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The one key assumption in science/physicalism/materialism is that reality will not be capricious in the way it could be if it was being influenced by some ultimate sentience. Because if that were true, any 'law' or expectation of consistent behaviour from one second to the next would have to cast into doubt. We might as well give up the whole scientific enterprise, because we would effectively be trying to 'second-guess' a vastly greater 'intelligence' than our own.

You are conflating "scientism" and "scientific materialism" with "science." they are not the same. The former are metaphysical positions or ideologies, the latter is a methodology. Also, science is not inherently atheistic.

More irrelevant and obsolete labelling and categorization., which completely missed the point I was making there., about whether indeterminism or randomness imply anything about some ultimate sentient agent behind  it all.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But since we have managed to make enormous progress in uncovering ever more accurate and consistent 'laws' and theories, it seems that even if there is some sort of deity 'out there', it doesn't appear to intervene in our Universe, so we can safely ignore it in our investigations.

You are assuming that this "greater intelligence" would behave spontaneosly or on a whim. If so, then I must logically conclude that you must believe all forms of conscious intelligence (e.g. human intelligence) are inherently random. The upshot of all this is that your objection here actually qualifies as indirect argument against your own mechanical worldview. 

No, I am assuming the exact opposite of that. For any sentience to behave in a manner worthy of being called sentient, it would have to behave in a manner which could NOT be modelled by a decision-making process based on the equivalent of coin-flips.

I am pointing to the FACT that quantum indeterminacy displays the most purely random statistics of any physical process, so is unlikely to be due to the intervention of some form of sentience.

You are the one trying to justify a 'mental' causation of these apparently physically uncaused events. I am pointing out that this would be a 'mind ' that is behaving in an exquisitely random manner, which doesn't sound like conscious decision-making to me.

Epic fail, Paisley.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If it doesn't make any predictions, then it qualifies as a

metaphysical interpretation

. All interpretations of QM are metaphysical. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this?

Because 'metaphysical' is a pointless qualification. Metaphysics as a 'discipline' is even emptier than 'Philosophy'. I don't care about such irrelevant labels. I have described what the value of the particular MWI I prefer is more than once. If you still don't 'get it', too bad for you.

 Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy! If you entertain some kind of 'theory' that helps you to better understand the world but does not make any predictions, then you are engaging in metaphysics. That you choose not to acknowledge this does not change this fact. It simply reveals your ignorance of what the term means. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Does MWI explain away all the anomalies of QM (e.g. quantum indeterminacy, particle/wave duality, entanglement and nonlocality)?

I never claimed it 'explained away' anything. It does help me think about those other issues. To repeat, as I use it, it is NOT an explanation as such, it is a model which helps me conceptualize one way of thinking about QM.

Translation: "It provides me with a pseudo-physical explanation for quantum indeterminacy and other spooky QM anomalies."

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Materialists are simply moving the "goal posts." If quantum indeterminacy is true, then there is no physical explanation for physical events occurring uncaused. If quantum entanglement and nonlocality are true, then there is no physical explanation for these anomalies. 

'Moving the goal-posts' is an honest response to the revelation of previously  unsuspected aspects of physical reality. We don't have an explanation of why decay happens in a purely random manner, but it is an observed and well-described and characterized physical phenomena.

Correction. It is not honest; it is dishonest. And it is dishonest because you refuse to acknowledge that materialism must provide a physical explanation (at least in principle) for every physical event. This is the primary reason for the widespread belief by materialists in the "many worlds" interpretation. We both know this. The problem, however, is that you are simply too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Lack of a known physical cause does not make it non-physical. What is the physical explanation for 'mass' and the principle of conservation of mass/energy? At some point, we reach some fundamental aspects of reality, which defy further analysis or reduction, at least for now. At this stage, the random aspect of quantum phenomena probably has to be treated as one of these. This is all part of the history of physics.

That is the whole point. If it cannot be reduced to something physical, then it is not physical. And if you say materialism is compatible with this view, then you are simply moving the "goal posts" and engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You are assuming that this "greater intelligence" would behave spontaneosly or on a whim. If so, then I must logically conclude that you must believe all forms of conscious intelligence (e.g. human intelligence) are inherently random. The upshot of all this is that your objection here actually qualifies as indirect argument against your own mechanical worldview. 

No, I am assuming the exact opposite of that. For any sentience to behave in a manner worthy of being called sentient, it would have to behave in a manner which could NOT be modelled by a decision-making process based on the equivalent of coin-flips.

What you have completely failed to realize is that you have placed yourself in a no-win situation by redefining materialism to be compatible with randomness or "uncaused physical events." If randomness is acceptable, then you cannot make the argument that science cannot tolerate the notion of a "greater intelligence" because that would imply some kind of "intervention" in the natural process and introduce an element of randomness. You have already stated that randomness is completely compatible with materialism and science!

On the other hand, why would a deterministic "greater intelligence" be at odds with science in a world that is fundamentally indeterminate? Also, how do you account for your own intelligence in light of the fact that you must necessarily believe you are governed by material processes that are fundamentally indeterminate? The "greater intelligence" does not have to be ruled by random material processes. But you do because you can only appeal to material processes.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am pointing to the FACT that quantum indeterminacy displays the most purely random statistics of any physical process, so is unlikely to be due to the intervention of some form of sentience.

You are the one trying to justify a 'mental' causation of these apparently physically uncaused events. I am pointing out that this would be a 'mind ' that is behaving in an exquisitely random manner, which doesn't sound like conscious decision-making to me.

Epic fail, Paisley.

Well, it sounds like decision-making to me. In fact, this is the textbook definition of free will.

Quote:

indeterminism 1 a : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism

Also, there are already a plethora of quantum mind theories. These are not mere metaphysical speculations. They are actually testable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So a random-number generator

So a random-number generator is therefore demonstrating intelligent decision making???

Are you insane?

Random means behaving in a purely probabilistic manner, unaffected by external factors.

Intelligent decisions will not display such characteristics, otherwise a robot that made decisions based on the flip of a coin would be indistinguishable from an intelligent being.

I assume you are conflating 'random' with 'indeterminate'. Intelligent decision making may be seen as indeterminate only because we do not have access to all the factors that a conscious-decision maker is taking into account when making a decision. But it is not random, that would mean the decisions were perfectly arbitrary. If the being has any preferences, or applies reasoning and logic, they will not be random, they will have a pattern, reflecting the preferences, desires and relevant knowledge of the being. If we observe a sufficient number of decisions, we will be able to make increasingly accurate guesses as to what choices will be made in various common situations. Such patterns will never appear in a purely random process.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Metaphysical

Paisley wrote:
Metaphysical proposition? I can live with that. A metaphysical proposition is something that can be accepted or rejected.

Excellent. A little progress.

A belief is something that is accepted. A proposition is something that can be accepted or rejected, but is not necessarily in either state.

Quote:

I misrepresented what you said? I said that it APPEARS that you believe that MWI qualifies as nothing more than a metaphysical belief. And you corrected me by saying "no"...it might qualify as a metaphysical proposition, but not as a metaphysical belief. LOL!

We both know what you're attempting to do here. It's called "damage control." Why are you in engaging in this tactic? Because I have made it abundantly clear in a previous post that you have just implied that your "comrade in arms" (i.e. Bob) is a "wanker." 

And here you go again... Did you actually say "LOL?" How cute, Hello Kitty!

There is a distinct difference between a "belief" (something that is accepted) and a proposition. You have never shown the mental fortitude to distinguish the difference. You seem to divide the universe into things that are true and things that are not true, without ever bothering to recognize there is a third class: things we cannot yet know if they are true.

I recognized Bob accepts the MWI as a good model. He has never once stated it isn't merely a proposition, your juvenile attempts at sophistry notwithstanding. He did appear to state it was a stronger model than some other models. Big whoop. You are the one prosecuting a boring and somewhat irrelevant argument concerning our various preferences for QM models. In some circles, that'd be considered a non sequitur. For you, I consider it par for the course.

You have inflicted no damage to me. It appears more to be a self-inflicted wound, which you just now administered. Oh! Or are you going to argue that "proposition" and "belief" are synonymous? Please do! That'd be fun!

Quote:

This is a debate forum. This should be evident to anyone who is capable of reading the title - "Atheist vs. Theist." If you lack the emotional fortitude to engage in this type of activity, then I suggest you should not participate in this forum.

"Atheist vs. Theist" doesn't necessarily mean "debate." It could also mean abuse. This demonstrates your poor reading comprehension skills.

While your suggestion has been taken under advisement, it has been rejected due to it being another example of you being an arrogant prick.

Quote:

That you refer to me on other forums simply reveals that I am getting under your skin.

No. It means you are a shining example of why I thought philosophy was nothing but a ten-pound bag filled with twenty pounds of shit. That conversation wasn't about you. You were merely an example of bad philosophy. I was laughing at you, Paisley.

Quote:

You're projecting again.

How blind can you be? I have often qualified my statements with things like, "I might be wrong," or, "This was years ago; I might be misremembering." And worse, I have even acknowledged when I was mistaken! GASP! No wonder I suck at arguing. I actually recognize when I am wrong!

And "You're projecting again," is nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I?" But then, we already knew you had the emotional development of an 8-year-old.

Quote:

An "ad hominem" is a personal attack employed as a counterargument. Flinging ad hominem attacks and personal insults is your M.O.

I don't employ personal attacks as a counter-argument, you vapid moronic toad. I use them as insults. And it is not my personal M.O. In fact, I am generally polite, as you can see when dealing with other people (and as I started out with you, over a year ago). Against you it doesn't matter, though, because intelligent discussion is worthless. You twist words and meanings, and misrepresent people and concepts.

I honestly believe you don't even know that's what you're doing, though.

Strangely enough, you skirt the ad hominem when you say things like, "I suggest you do not participate in this forum." Which you do a lot. It's as if you are afraid of people, and don't wish them to participate.

Quote:

Whether you give  a "fuck" about the question is irrelevant. Previously, you implied that the question I posed in the OP of this thread had nothing to do with serious philosophy (apparently because you had learned so much about philosophy from an online encounter with a "professional" philosopher). Well, I corrected you. It is  probably the most fundamental question of philosophy. And I just cited the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" to back that claim.

In the title of this thread, you said "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is the most fundamental question of existence. Existence is the realm of science. It is I who corrected you, in showing the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is meaningless with regards to science.

And as others have pointed out, it's not even taken that seriously in philosophy these days.

But then, considering your other thoughts and beliefs seem to be about 150 years too late, I'm not surprised you are stuck contemplating 150-year-old questions.

As for the "scare" quotes around "professional" philosopher, I learned more about philosophy from him in a 5-post exchange then you seem to comprehend right now. As has been amply demonstrated in this thread and others, your grasp of the tools of philosophy are quite weak.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Intelligent

BobSpence1 wrote:
Intelligent decisions will not display such characteristics, otherwise a robot that made decisions based on the flip of a coin would be indistinguishable from an intelligent being.

Y'know what's fun? A computer program can reliably predict the future. Human behavior is not as random as some might like to suppose.

While I wouldn't be surprised if some of the mechanics of consciousness are based on quantum effects (such as the way photosynthesis uses quantum tunneling), I suspect the quantum effects will be employed in a reliable fashion. And of course, even if quantum effects are part of the mechanism of consciousness, that doesn't imply quantum events carry an element of "consciousness" with them, any more than a lone electron carries an element of "computation," or a lone gear carries with it an element of "timekeeping."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To yet again attempt to

To yet again attempt to clarify for Paisley's benefit: I found Colin Bruce's description of a particular version of the MWI a very interesting model, which avoided some of the things about other versions which I found difficult to accept. In fact I do not find the more 'standard' versions very useful at all.

So to make categorical statements about what I think about MWI without acknowledging that distinction is to seriously misread my position.

I avoid the term 'metaphysics' because I feel it has way too much baggage attached, and brings up associations with a long line of pointless and often fallacious discussions and concepts, from Platonic idealism on.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I avoid the

BobSpence1 wrote:
I avoid the term 'metaphysics' because I feel it has way too much baggage attached, and brings up associations with a long line of pointless and often fallacious discussions and concepts, from Platonic idealism on.

It seems the philosophical pursuit of "metaphysics" has been replaced with the general practice of science. From what I can tell, metaphysics was a placeholder, a bin under which all "ideas about the way the world works" could get tossed as grist for debate, which was carried out much the way Paisley carries out his debates: by choosing a position and defending it to the death. This was productive in a certain way, I guess, but it seems to have arrived at more incorrect propositions than correct propositions.

That bin became irrelevant once we had a productive and workable system for actually studying the way things work. The term "metaphysics" still carries with it the odor of rotting ideas and propositions, though. It's distasteful, and somewhat unseemly, to store in that bin bright shiny clean new ideas that have conditionally passed the test of congruence with currently-observed reality.

Of course, that's just my take on metaphysics.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Intelligent decisions will not display such characteristics, otherwise a robot that made decisions based on the flip of a coin would be indistinguishable from an intelligent being.

Y'know what's fun? A computer program can reliably predict the future. Human behavior is not as random as some might like to suppose.

While I wouldn't be surprised if some of the mechanics of consciousness are based on quantum effects (such as the way photosynthesis uses quantum tunneling), I suspect the quantum effects will be employed in a reliable fashion. And of course, even if quantum effects are part of the mechanism of consciousness, that doesn't imply quantum events carry an element of "consciousness" with them, any more than a lone electron carries an element of "computation," or a lone gear carries with it an element of "timekeeping."

I would comment on the first reference by saying that much of human behaviour is far more predictable and 'determined' than we assume.

'Quantum effects' are fundamentally involved in the operation of semiconductors, but the computers we build using those devices are virtually perfectly deterministic in every sense.

Actually, according to QM, there is a non-zero probability that a semiconductor will 'flip' the wrong way, but it is so vanishingly small that we can safely ignore it, just as we ignore the non zero probability that we might suddenly find ourselves on the opposite side of a wall. There is a far higher probability, but still vanishingly small, that our brains will turn to pulp, or any of an infinite number of other less coherent scenarios than translating intact thru a wall,

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"mooooo" is to cows, as "errr?" is to human

latincanuck wrote:

Como Nigel and Bob, paisley is got to be one of the more predictable people on this board, it's always the same, make erroneous statements about what others believe in, misinterpret or give completely illogical or vague definitions to the terms that s/he is using so vague that it has no actual meaning in the way paisley uses the word or terms paisley proposes. I must agree with your definition of philosophy as well, however philosophical arguments doesn't mean what your arguing is actually true or even the entire proposition of it has to be true, I have gotten to hear some nice philosophical debates between theists about the nature of god, doesn't mean that god exists, nor that their views are actually true about god if god even exists. It just means they are thinking and exchanging their ideas and trying to expand on various ideas/topics/concepts that we as a society deal with. But it by no means is actual fact.

Si, señor LC!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'Quantum

BobSpence1 wrote:
'Quantum effects' are fundamentally involved in the operation of semiconductors, but the computers we build using those devices are virtually perfectly deterministic in every sense.

Exactly. Many of those "quantum mind" theories in the Wikipedia article state nothing more profound than, "Quantum events may be part of the mechanism of consciousness."

Roger Penrose ups the ante a little by stating (and I paraphrase the hell out of him), "The algebra of quantum mechanics may contain truth statements that are unprovable by the algebra itself (via Godel). Ergo, consciousness may not be strictly computationally-solvable." But even if this were true, the system itself is still fully physical. There is no element of "other." The only real controversy here is whether those "unprovable truths" are in any way meaningful.

This is, of course, far off the thread topic. But I think those cows left the barn a long, long time ago.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
'Quantum effects' are fundamentally involved in the operation of semiconductors, but the computers we build using those devices are virtually perfectly deterministic in every sense.

Exactly. Many of those "quantum mind" theories in the Wikipedia article state nothing more profound than, "Quantum events may be part of the mechanism of consciousness."

Roger Penrose ups the ante a little by stating (and I paraphrase the hell out of him), "The algebra of quantum mechanics may contain truth statements that are unprovable by the algebra itself (via Godel). Ergo, consciousness may not be strictly computationally-solvable." But even if this were true, the system itself is still fully physical. There is no element of "other." The only real controversy here is whether those "unprovable truths" are in any way meaningful.

This is, of course, far off the thread topic. But I think those cows left the barn a long, long time ago.

Penrose's 'Shadows of the Mind" is one of the few books I gave up on. I thought he was really pushing QM as an important mechanism in consciousness way over the top. More recent interviews I have seen with him make me more certain that he had a somewhat naive approach to consciousness. He is a mathematical physicist, not a neuroscientist, so I think that lead him to put too much emphasis on the low-level mechanisms involved.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
missed this earlier

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

heh! I spent my earliest formative years looking at astronomy books... trying my DAMNEDEST to figure out the one, final "unexplained mystery" of quantum mechanics... the gravitational singularity.

Me too! In 8th grade, I would check out books on nuclear physics. Not the big ones, mind you, but just the typical layman's-overview books -- typically, books detailing the subatomic menagerie, the history of particle physics, and so on. One of my favorite articles in Discover Magazine was about a bunch of rogue physicists who were pursuing the wild idea that most current physicists scoffed at -- string theory. It was an elegant and simple theory.

I also loved the big illustrated books of the universe. And after Cosmos aired, I really wanted to be an astronomer. Then I wanted to work at CERN.

Oh yes... although there was no "large hadron collider" back in my days... people telling me I might be intelligent enough to... (work 'miracles' with science and left-minded thinking, in so many words) was all I needed to hear to forever covet the (life-long) career of science. It also gave me 'Brittle Ego Syndrome', so when I figured out how heavily Academia (something I failed at so easily) was so heavily intertwined with The Pursuit of Knowledge, became a might burnt out on the whole "Scientific Achievement" thing...

Quote:

Quote:
I think I ended up bruising my 'brain muscle' during all that hard thinking... but I was better off for it.

edit, as a side note: I can hardly blame you for not being a physicist... too much arthritis-inducing chalkboard scribbling

That decision came after a talk with my adviser, when he asked me what I wanted to do after graduation. He was mostly asking where I wanted to attend grad school, and what I would specialize in. We talked about CERN, and other research areas, and he disillusioned me at the time. He had gotten his PhD at CalTech. He had also wanted to work at CERN. He was instead teaching physics at the University of Alaska (he hastened to explain that he loved what he was doing, and had no regrets).

It was really just the realization that I probably couldn't become a rock star. And while I enjoyed my stint in a lab assisting a professor doing high-temperature superconductivity research, I realized that wasn't what I wanted to do for my life.

Hmph... working with great minds and taking home a fair slice of the 'pie' was all the motivation I would have ever needed in a career choice. Alas... I faced some pretty damn dark realizations in my adolescent years, many of them from being around people with NO life ambitions whatsoever in a deteriorating public education system that shows no desire to harness the young, developing minds going through it, nor has any interest in becoming better and more well-run than it is right now. (Sorry for the OT rant...)

My point being, even now I want to achieve what I feel I'm capable of in life (rational pursuit of knowledge), regardless of who gets in my way. (heh! Being raised on the ridiculous "every kid is a winner" ideal will do that to a person )

Quote:
Anyway, all that's neither here nor there. I just understand what you mean about being passionate about the science without being a scientist yourself. And bruising your head against new things is the best way to keep in mental shape.

I do try most days... (how else could one explain me finding my way to RRS?! hehehe)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
OFF TOPIC: A challange for Paisley

Paisley,

You say you respect references. You have also stated that Daniel Dennett denies subjective experience exists.

If I provide you to a reference in which Dennett specifically states he does not deny the existence of subjective experience, will you publicly retract the statements you have made concerning Dennett denying subjective experiences?

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kane Jeeves
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Possibility

Paisley wrote:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Unlike some posters here, I do think your question is a good one to ask.  And I agree that it seems like the one question all others boil down to, i.e. fundamental.  The hard part is that most of us want a satisfying answer, or at least AN answer, even if it's not satisfying (in the sense of fulfilling some yearning due to wondering about it.)  It's seems unfulfilling to say "we can't answer that".  Unfortunately I think that's the best we can do. 

Here's why I think this:  I have a couple finches.  I wonder what they think.  They certainly seem like "lower" levels of consciousness, but still conscious.  What concepts do they have when they think about their world? Flying, thirst, hunger, maybe affection of some sort (they seem to cuddle), happiness maybe, some bird like sense of self I guess.  Some sense of "other" maybe, because they see this big thing (me) come up to their cage and place food and water there.  Do they think I'm "God"?  My point is, they have some very limited set of concepts they use to explain their world to themselves.  They know nothing of quantum physics, E=MC2, evolution, etc.  And not only do they not have such advanced concepts as we do, they don't even know they don't have these concepts.  So then I think, how are we any different than my finches?  Sure we have grand theories, and all these advanced notions of logic, and concepts such as being, something, nothing. But do we know our concepts aren't just as limited compared to even higher beings (or that even our concept of "beings" isn't a limited one)?  We're different in magnitude for sure, but we can't know if we're different in kind.  The only way to know that is to get beyond ourselves, in the sense of becoming beings of a higher consciousness than ourselves, like we are to the birds.  And that's impossible.  We may put ourselves in trances and get all mystical, but we still don't know if that's "higher consciousness - really" or just "regular consciousness - perceived to be higher".

So as much as it's unsatisfying, I have to answer "we don't even know if the question 'why is there something rather than nothing' makes sense". 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think the main problem in

I think the main problem in comparing animals to people in this sense is death. My dogs as cute and as smart as I think they are have no real concept of what death is. They have the natural instinct to preserve their life (like we do) but they don't even know it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:This is why

kidvelvet wrote:

This is why the question you posed is as useful as the question that I posed: Why do I like waffles?  Is there any actionable items that can come from the question "Why do I like waffes?"  Not really, so the question is moot.  Nigel's question, however, of "How did the universe come into existence?" provides a means to increase knowledge about the universe, how it works, how it may have started, and where it may go.  Your question is mental masturbation.  It is a problem that most beginning philosophers have, and why many are seen as "ivory tower acedemics" by the masses.

To reiterate: Martin Heidegger considered the question "why is there something rather the nothing" to be the most fundamental question in philosophy. (Martin Heidegger was arguably the most influential philosopher within the last century.) 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet

kidvelvet wrote:

Quote:

Whether you give  a "fuck" about the question is irrelevant. Previously, you implied that the question I posed in the OP of this thread had nothing to do with serious philosophy (apparently because you had learned so much about philosophy from an online encounter with a "professional" philosopher). Well, I corrected you. It is  probably the most fundamental question of philosophy. And I just cited the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" to back that claim.

You are correct...up until the 20th century.  Many 20th century philosophers (most notably Bertrand Russell) actually considered the question to be moot and of little relevance.  Most Logical Positivists would see philosophy as having a very narrow scope, mostly in linguistics and natural phenomenon (more in line with science, actually).  The question is relevant when learning ancient and early modern philosophy, but contemporary philosophy really drives away from that question and looks at more relevant questions.

IMHO, this was necessary for philisophical thought to not only survive, but to find relevance in a modern world.  In that realm, philosophy is much like science.  It has reshaped and rethought itself in order to keep pace with modern times.  This is a GOOD thing. 

Logical positivism is inherently self-refuting because the "verification principle" on which it is based cannot itself be verified and therefore must be rendered meaningless.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:kidvelvet

Paisley wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

This is why the question you posed is as useful as the question that I posed: Why do I like waffles?  Is there any actionable items that can come from the question "Why do I like waffes?"  Not really, so the question is moot.  Nigel's question, however, of "How did the universe come into existence?" provides a means to increase knowledge about the universe, how it works, how it may have started, and where it may go.  Your question is mental masturbation.  It is a problem that most beginning philosophers have, and why many are seen as "ivory tower acedemics" by the masses.

To reiterate: Martin Heidegger considered the question "why is there something rather the nothing" to be the most fundamental question in philosophy. (Martin Heidegger was arguably the most influential philosopher within the last century.) 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

None of which makes it automatically true, in any sense. It is ultimately a matter of opinion.

Philosophy is not about what is actually true, merely about what some dudes think might be 'true' or 'significant'.

Are you that dedicated to the fallacy of the 'argument from authority'?

I'm sure you can find other philosophers who disagree with Heidegger. It is not an idea which can be more than a subjective opinion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:kidvelvet

Paisley wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

Quote:

Whether you give  a "fuck" about the question is irrelevant. Previously, you implied that the question I posed in the OP of this thread had nothing to do with serious philosophy (apparently because you had learned so much about philosophy from an online encounter with a "professional" philosopher). Well, I corrected you. It is  probably the most fundamental question of philosophy. And I just cited the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" to back that claim.

You are correct...up until the 20th century.  Many 20th century philosophers (most notably Bertrand Russell) actually considered the question to be moot and of little relevance.  Most Logical Positivists would see philosophy as having a very narrow scope, mostly in linguistics and natural phenomenon (more in line with science, actually).  The question is relevant when learning ancient and early modern philosophy, but contemporary philosophy really drives away from that question and looks at more relevant questions.

IMHO, this was necessary for philisophical thought to not only survive, but to find relevance in a modern world.  In that realm, philosophy is much like science.  It has reshaped and rethought itself in order to keep pace with modern times.  This is a GOOD thing. 

Logical positivism is inherently self-refuting because the "verification principle" on which it is based cannot itself be verified and therefore must be rendered meaningless.

That is a meaningless comment, since no system of thought, including logic itself, can be internally verified. The only thing your comment means, at most, is that it is no more 'verifiable' than any other system, not that all its other conclusions are meaningless. However, insofar as its other conclusions are internally consistent, and consistent with objective reality, it has value, just as with any other system.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So a

BobSpence1 wrote:

So a random-number generator is therefore demonstrating intelligent decision making???

Are you insane?

No, I believe my sanity is still intact. I am not the one here who is questioning the reality of my subjective awareness. You are.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Random means behaving in a purely probabilistic manner, unaffected by external factors.

I know what "random" means. Events that are truly random are uncaused. Quantum events appear to be truly random.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Intelligent decisions will not display such characteristics, otherwise a robot that made decisions based on the flip of a coin would be indistinguishable from an intelligent being.

I am the referee. You are are the captain of your respective football team. The game is going into overtime. It is paramount that you win the coin toss. I tell you I will flip the coin into air and you will call "heads" or "tails" before it hits the ground. I toss the coin and you say "heads." The coin lands "tails." I ask you why did you call out "heads." You say: "No particular reason except I had choose one or the other." I tell you that you are an atheist who is incapable of making an intelligent decision.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I assume you are conflating 'random' with 'indeterminate'.

The terms "random" and "indeterminate" mean "without cause" in the context of QM.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Intelligent decision making may be seen as indeterminate only because we do not have access to all the factors that a conscious-decision maker is taking into account when making a decision. But it is not random, that would mean the decisions were perfectly arbitrary. If the being has any preferences, or applies reasoning and logic, they will not be random, they will have a pattern, reflecting the preferences, desires and relevant knowledge of the being. If we observe a sufficient number of decisions, we will be able to make increasingly accurate guesses as to what choices will be made in various common situations. Such patterns will never appear in a purely random process.

I never stated that intelligent decision-making is strictly random or indeterminate. We make choices based on reason or purpose (something for which your materialist worldview must necessarily characterize as purely illusory). Free will entails an element of "self-determination" based on our capacity to freely choose from a number of possibilities. The more possibilities you have the more degrees of freedom you have. That being said, there is a component of spontaneity at play here. Your thoughts and images are spontaneously (not mechanically) "popping in and out" of your mind. This is the basis for "creativity."

You seem to think that "determinism" and "indeterminism" are mutually exclusive. They're not. Quantum systems themselves have both a determinate aspect and an indeterminate aspect. Creative intelligence does as well.

The basic difference between our respective worldviews is that you see the world as a machine where you are merely a cog. I see the world as a creative thought-process where I am a co-creator.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley,

You say you respect references. You have also stated that Daniel Dennett denies subjective experience exists.

If I provide you to a reference in which Dennett specifically states he does not deny the existence of subjective experience, will you publicly retract the statements you have made concerning Dennett denying subjective experiences?

Only if you admit that Dennett actually affirmed (not denied) the existence of the "elan vital." 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: I am the

Paisley wrote:

I am the referee. You are are the captain of your respective football team. The game is going into overtime. It is paramount that you win the coin toss. I tell you I will flip the coin into air and you will call "heads" or "tails" before it hits the ground. I toss the coin and you say "heads." The coin lands "tails." I ask you why did you call out "heads." You say: "No particular reason except I had choose one or the other." I tell you that you are an atheist who is incapable of making an intelligent decision.

You're kidding me, right? Just because an intelligent being can make a decision based on the random flip of a coin, it by no means makes it the same as a robot that can ONLY make a decision from the flip of a coin. Heck, because the robot is programmed to obey whatever the coin determines, no resistance can be raised. On the other hand, in this example, Bob is WILLFULLY subjugating his next decision to the whims of a flipped coin. He can chose to disobey what the flipped coin says if he dislikes it, or even refuse to call the flip altogether, smash the referee's head in, and leave the arena. Why? Because Bob's actions aren't determined by the flip of a coin. 

Secondly, I see that you haven't responded to my post. Why attribute any other qualities to the intelligent "consciousness"? You see, it is in THAT fundamental aspect that you're argument falls apart. You can well argue for an intelligent "consciousness", but this by no means implies a God--much less a Christian God. No matter how you slice it, the theist must make more assumptions than everyone else.

Finally, here you're arguments have become "Yeah, it appears random, but what if it isn't?" Sorry, but that's just an absurd objection. Until you can give a good reason of why it isn't random, you're point is moot.

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I'm sure

BobSpence1 wrote:

I'm sure you can find other philosophers who disagree with Heidegger. It is not an idea which can be more than a subjective opinion.

Agreed. But that was not my argument. The point I was making is that there have been philosophers from time immemorial until now who have considered the question I posed in the OP to be a meaningful one. In fact, many atheists themselves consider the question to be meaningful. That's why we "atheistic existentialism" in the world today.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Random" and "spontaneous'

"Random" and "spontaneous' and 'uncaused' all mean essentially the same thing in this context.

Decisions based on reason or purpose are to that extent NOT spontaneous.

I agree that random/uncaused events are the true source of genuinely new insights and ideas, ie the source of creativity.

You refuse to see that these ideas of random vs determined are just as applicable to the mental world as the 'physical', at least partly because the mental world is ultimately dependent of the physical.

We don't deny that awareness etc, 'exists', in some sense, just that it is not some non-physical 'substance' or 'essence'. It is what a particular, and subtle, physical/chemical process 'feels' like from the 'inside'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:kidvelvet

Paisley wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

This is why the question you posed is as useful as the question that I posed: Why do I like waffles?  Is there any actionable items that can come from the question "Why do I like waffes?"  Not really, so the question is moot.  Nigel's question, however, of "How did the universe come into existence?" provides a means to increase knowledge about the universe, how it works, how it may have started, and where it may go.  Your question is mental masturbation.  It is a problem that most beginning philosophers have, and why many are seen as "ivory tower acedemics" by the masses.

To reiterate: Martin Heidegger considered the question "why is there something rather the nothing" to be the most fundamental question in philosophy. (Martin Heidegger was arguably the most influential philosopher within the last century.) 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously -- Noam Chomsky

As has been pointed out, there are many critics of Heidegger, and there have been those critical of the critics...but the point being that there are many people in the modern era of philosophy are moving away from such questions because it puts philosophy back into (as Chomsky once told me) "ivory tower acedemics".  Chomsky is a harsh critic of the metaphysical because it doesn't really apply to the main problems in the world that critical thinking is needed.  This was why philosophy turned more towards linguistics, ethics, and politics.  Realms where questions could be answered and actions taken.  Logical positivists started this movement, and hopefully, IMHO, others will expand, critique, and modify it.

Verification was criticized by Popper, but he substituted the idea of falsifiability.  Essentially he didn't throw verification out, he modified it.  Then again, he also believed that inductive reasoning was unnecessary for science.  Somthing that the pragmatic part of me can't accept.

While the question may have been relevant in the past, I would still argue that it is not very relevant moving forward with philosophy.  Focus for the intellectuals should be on things that have a bearing on how we live and the problems that we face, and the questions on "something versus nothing" should be left to science, where it has the tools to answer the question (or, in effect, the updated questions) properly.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I'm sure you can find other philosophers who disagree with Heidegger. It is not an idea which can be more than a subjective opinion.

Agreed. But that was not my argument. The point I was making is that there have been philosophers from time immemorial until now who have considered the question I posed in the OP to be a meaningful one. In fact, many atheists themselves consider the question to be meaningful. That's why we "atheistic existentialism" in the world today.

And the argument that I present is that the question, in modern times, has become less and less relevant, and there are many philosophers who would agree.  Many find metaphysics an endeavor of fondness, with less relevance not just in science, but in speech, politics, ethics, and logic.  When I would hear fellow students back in the day contemplate metaphysics, I couldn't help but feel that this is valuable time that could be used to answer real questions that have a relevant impact on others.  How does metaphysics help the people in Darfur?  How does it help minorities in the US get on equal footing after centuries of oppression?  How does it stop the violence in the streets?  How does it answer questions about economic inequity?  How does it apply to a just legal system?  To me, these were the reasons to study philosophy; learn the history, understand the basics, and then apply them them to everyday critical thinking about the world around me.  Science answers the questions about how the world works, and philisophical history helped me understand where scientific thought came to be. 

So while Heidegger was contemplating the "most meaningful question", Jews were getting slaughtered all around him.  What was more meaningful at the time?

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:Paisley

kidvelvet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Agreed. But that was not my argument. The point I was making is that there have been philosophers from time immemorial until now who have considered the question I posed in the OP to be a meaningful one. In fact, many atheists themselves consider the question to be meaningful. That's why we "atheistic existentialism" in the world today.

And the argument that I present is that the question, in modern times, has become less and less relevant, and there are many philosophers who would agree. 

And there are many philosophers who would disagree with you as well. Newsflash: "Philosophers have disagreed with each other in the past. They continue to  disagree with each other in the present. And they will disagree in the future. That's philosophy."

kidvelvet wrote:

Many find metaphysics an endeavor of fondness, with less relevance not just in science, but in speech, politics, ethics, and logic.  When I would hear fellow students back in the day contemplate metaphysics, I couldn't help but feel that this is valuable time that could be used to answer real questions that have a relevant impact on others.  How does metaphysics help the people in Darfur?  How does it help minorities in the US get on equal footing after centuries of oppression?  How does it stop the violence in the streets?  How does it answer questions about economic inequity?  How does it apply to a just legal system?  To me, these were the reasons to study philosophy; learn the history, understand the basics, and then apply them them to everyday critical thinking about the world around me.  Science answers the questions about how the world works, and philisophical history helped me understand where scientific thought came to be. 

So while Heidegger was contemplating the "most meaningful question", Jews were getting slaughtered all around him.  What was more meaningful at the time?

This is a debate forum. If you feel so strongly that that philosophical debate is a complete waste of your precious time, then why are you participating on this forum?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


D33PPURPLE
atheist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2009-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:kidvelvet

Paisley wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Agreed. But that was not my argument. The point I was making is that there have been philosophers from time immemorial until now who have considered the question I posed in the OP to be a meaningful one. In fact, many atheists themselves consider the question to be meaningful. That's why we "atheistic existentialism" in the world today.

And the argument that I present is that the question, in modern times, has become less and less relevant, and there are many philosophers who would agree. 

And there are many philosophers who would disagree with you as well. Newsflash: "Philosophers have disagreed with each other in the past. They continue to  disagree with each other in the present. And they will disagree in the future. That's philosophy."

Gee sir, the way you're talking, you'd think Heidegger had settled the matter; your question is of the utmost relevance. kidvelvet has explained how the matter is far from settled. All you're left with is an argument from authority.

kidvelvet wrote:

Many find metaphysics an endeavor of fondness, with less relevance not just in science, but in speech, politics, ethics, and logic.  When I would hear fellow students back in the day contemplate metaphysics, I couldn't help but feel that this is valuable time that could be used to answer real questions that have a relevant impact on others.  How does metaphysics help the people in Darfur?  How does it help minorities in the US get on equal footing after centuries of oppression?  How does it stop the violence in the streets?  How does it answer questions about economic inequity?  How does it apply to a just legal system?  To me, these were the reasons to study philosophy; learn the history, understand the basics, and then apply them them to everyday critical thinking about the world around me.  Science answers the questions about how the world works, and philisophical history helped me understand where scientific thought came to be. 

So while Heidegger was contemplating the "most meaningful question", Jews were getting slaughtered all around him.  What was more meaningful at the time?

This is a debate forum. If you feel so strongly that that philosophical debate is a complete waste of your precious time, then why are you participating on this forum?

You missed his point. He's pointing out not only how your understanding of philosophy is horrendous by a scholarly standard, but expressing why the other philosophies, like "atheistic existentialism" exist today. Perhaps if you'd read his comments with a more open mind, you'd realize that he is explaining quite a bit to you.

Also, I'm no philosopher. But as a person more immediately influenced by Pragmatic philosophy than from abstract metaphysics, I can't help but agree that before we start daydreaming about the "ivory tower academics", philosophy should be more focused on improving the lives of other human beings than anything else.

"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."

"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:kidvelvet

Paisley wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Agreed. But that was not my argument. The point I was making is that there have been philosophers from time immemorial until now who have considered the question I posed in the OP to be a meaningful one. In fact, many atheists themselves consider the question to be meaningful. That's why we "atheistic existentialism" in the world today.

And the argument that I present is that the question, in modern times, has become less and less relevant, and there are many philosophers who would agree. 

And there are many philosophers who would disagree with you as well. Newsflash: "Philosophers have disagreed with each other in the past. They continue to  disagree with each other in the present. And they will disagree in the future. That's philosophy."

kidvelvet wrote:

Many find metaphysics an endeavor of fondness, with less relevance not just in science, but in speech, politics, ethics, and logic.  When I would hear fellow students back in the day contemplate metaphysics, I couldn't help but feel that this is valuable time that could be used to answer real questions that have a relevant impact on others.  How does metaphysics help the people in Darfur?  How does it help minorities in the US get on equal footing after centuries of oppression?  How does it stop the violence in the streets?  How does it answer questions about economic inequity?  How does it apply to a just legal system?  To me, these were the reasons to study philosophy; learn the history, understand the basics, and then apply them them to everyday critical thinking about the world around me.  Science answers the questions about how the world works, and philisophical history helped me understand where scientific thought came to be. 

So while Heidegger was contemplating the "most meaningful question", Jews were getting slaughtered all around him.  What was more meaningful at the time?

This is a debate forum. If you feel so strongly that that philosophical debate is a complete waste of your precious time, then why are you participating on this forum?

Sweet smoking Jesus!  Seriously, Pais?  That is your answer?  I "debate" the relevance of the question (as have others), and this is the response?  I argued why I belive the question is irrelevant, and I have argued that there are others that agree with me.  You post a link supporting your side, and I post what supports my side.  That is how a debate works, Pais.  And yet your response is to take your ball and go home.  Nice. 

I think there is someone knocking on your door...

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"Random"

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Random" and "spontaneous' and 'uncaused' all mean essentially the same thing in this context.

We already had this discussion. I prefer the term "spontaneity" because it  has a more positive connotation.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Decisions based on reason or purpose are to that extent NOT spontaneous.

Agreed.  I said conscious intelligence encompasses both self-determination and spontaneity.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I agree that random/uncaused events are the true source of genuinely new insights and ideas, ie the source of creativity.

Good.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You refuse to see that these ideas of random vs determined are just as applicable to the mental world as the 'physical', at least partly because the mental world is ultimately dependent of the physical.

No. This is not true. I have already stated that I believe mentality or consciousness involves both components (i.e. determinism and spontaneity). What I will argue is that "indeterminism" poses a larger obstacle for a strictly material worldview rather than for a spiritual one. As a believer, I fully embrace the "indeterminate." That's something that will always remain mysterious. It can never be explained.

BobSpence1 wrote:

We don't deny that awareness etc, 'exists', in some sense, just that it is not some non-physical 'substance' or 'essence'. It is what a particular, and subtle, physical/chemical process 'feels' like from the 'inside'. 

Well, you have been tap dancing around this one for sometime. You profess to be a "non-reductive physicalist." As I see it, there are basically two options here: Supervenient theory or epiphenomenalism. "Supervenient theory" holds that  mental states are physical but cannot be reduced to physical properties. (IOW, mental states supervene on brain states.) But if they can't be reduced to physical properties, then why call them physical? "Epiphenomenalism" is actually a form of dualism. The bottom line is that both hold that mental states are causally inefficacious. And if both are causally inert, then you have no explanation for why consciousness was naturally selected since it could not have possibly conferred any survival benefit. IOW, why aren't organic "robots without consciousness" roaming the earth?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:Paisley

kidvelvet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

This is a debate forum. If you feel so strongly that that philosophical debate is a complete waste of your precious time, then why are you participating on this forum?

Sweet smoking Jesus!  Seriously, Pais?  That is your answer?  I "debate" the relevance of the question (as have others), and this is the response?  I argued why I belive the question is irrelevant, and I have argued that there are others that agree with me

Yeah, others like yourself have expressed the sentiment that philosophical/metaphysical debating is a waste of time (e.g. Bob and Nigel): and yet, they (like yourself) have failed to provide me with a reason why they are debating on this forum.

That was my counterargument. And the fact that you have responded only serves to make my point.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:kidvelvet

Paisley wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

This is a debate forum. If you feel so strongly that that philosophical debate is a complete waste of your precious time, then why are you participating on this forum?

Sweet smoking Jesus!  Seriously, Pais?  That is your answer?  I "debate" the relevance of the question (as have others), and this is the response?  I argued why I belive the question is irrelevant, and I have argued that there are others that agree with me

Yeah, others like yourself have expressed the sentiment that philosophical/metaphysical debating is a waste of time (e.g. Bob and Nigel): and yet, they (like yourself) have failed to provide me with a reason why they are debating on this forum.

That was my counterargument. And the fact that you have responded only serves to make my point.

I noticed that you only responded to the second part of the conjunction (the part that you underlined).

The first part is that I argued why I believe the question is irrelevant (or at the very least, has lost its relevancy).

I don't argue against philosophical arguments.  In fact, I plainly laid out my reasons why I find metaphysics (a subset of philosophy) misdirected.  I also noted other famous philosophers that feel the same way.  But the main point is that I actually argued why I feel it is irrelevant.  You simply point to an encyclopedia pointing to one person who says that it is relevant.  And yet you don't fully explain why you find it relevant.  Instead, you simply say "this is a debate forum".  Well, thanks for the update, Captain Obvious.  I know what this forum is.  It means debate, which means actually presenting your reasons, not just finding others to do the talking for you. 

Instead of simply pointing to <nameofwhatever>pedia, actually argue the points that you believe.  Actually do more than asking questions and arguing against the answers, Socrates.  Actually have a thought that is your own.

I brought mine to the table.  I know people will disagree with them.  But I expect a bit more than "well, people disagree with each other".  I expect more than simply compartmentalizing a few statements into a whole philosophical worldview (Oh, you like weebles?  You must be a tilted headupyourassivist.)  I expect you to not just criticize the other point of view; I expect you to provide your own and expect the same level of criticism. 

I expect you to actually debate. 

BTW: You still haven't answered my philosophical question: Why do I like waffles?

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Why is there

Paisley wrote:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

You are asking the wrong question.  Instead, you should be asking:

 

"Why do I think there is something?"

 

And:

 

"Why do I think that means there isn't nothing?"

And:

 

"What does something and nothing mean?"


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Only if you

Paisley wrote:
Only if you admit that Dennett actually affirmed (not denied) the existence of the "elan vital." 

Sorry, Paisley. I must've missed where he did that. Can you give a reference so I can verify this assertion? Because if he did explicitly affirm the existence of a vital force, I am more than willing to admit he explicitly affirmed the existence of a vital force. I have no desire to misrepresent Dennett, or anyone else.

[EDIT addendum]

You know what's funny, Paisley? I figured you'd find some way to avoid answering directly. It's funny how you can't answer a question directly. A simple, "Yes, nigelTheBold, I am willing to take your lame-assed challenge," or, "No, nigelTheBold, because I already know that he has explicitly said he believes subjective experience exists, but I would rather argue something ridiculous than attempt to engage in debate about meaningful matters."

That's all it would've taken.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yeah, others

Paisley wrote:
Yeah, others like yourself have expressed the sentiment that philosophical/metaphysical debating is a waste of time (e.g. Bob and Nigel): and yet, they (like yourself) have failed to provide me with a reason why they are debating on this forum.

That was my counterargument. And the fact that you have responded only serves to make my point.

Tell you what, Paisley. You start debating, and I'll debate with you. So far, you haven't "debated" a damned thing. (Oh, you argue a lot, but that's not debate.) You stated an easily-disproven assertion: The question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is the most fundamental question of existence.

Then your only defense was, "Heidegger said so."

That's not debate.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Logical positivism is inherently self-refuting because the "verification principle" on which it is based cannot itself be

verified

and therefore must be rendered meaningless.

That is a meaningless comment, since no system of thought, including logic itself, can be internally verified. The only thing your comment means, at most, is that it is no more 'verifiable' than any other system, not that all its other conclusions are meaningless. However, insofar as its other conclusions are internally consistent, and consistent with objective reality, it has value, just as with any other system.

I'd like to propose that the principles of materialism can in fact be verified by the same principles used to verify every single scientific proposition: the practical outcome.

Every single time the "verification principle" is tested against reality, it is verified. This is no different then verifying gravity by dropping a 16-ounce ball-peen hammer near a planet's surface and observing that it indeed falls to the ground. Every time Paisley uses the computer, or reliably heats his home in the winter, or rides in a motorized vehicle, he is proving the "verification principle" works, as every one of these modern conveniences is a result of the "verification principle" on which science relies. Or, more pithily, "The proof is in the pudding." (Mmm. Pudding.)

I would say that every metaphysical system also relies on the "verification principle" to some extent. Even Paisley attempts to explain observable phenomena, which is the basis of the "verification principle." For instance, when attempting to explain subjective experiences, Paisley never seems to doubt that subjective experiences will continue. He never seems to believe he might suddenly become an automaton tomorrow. He seems to believe that subjective experiences are observable and consistent. (If I am misrepresenting you, Paisley, I apologize. I am merely making these assumptions as you do attempt to provide an explanation for subjective experience.)

The major difference is in a single assumption. In materialism / logical positivism / physicalism / naturalism (or whatever you want to call it), the assumption is there is nothing but the observable. As metaphysics is pretty much, "Anything you can derive from first principles," there is no such restriction. And so, Plato's Forms can actually exist. The mental can be independent of the physical. Invisible pink unicorns can't exist, because the traits "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive; but invisible unicorns can exist.

In any case, Popper pretty much showed that hypotheses can't be "proven," per se. They can only fail to be disproven. This includes the assumptions on which an hypothesis rests. As the act of testing an hypothesis rests on the assumption of the "verification principle," the verification principle itself is tested every time someone correctly runs an experiment.

And so far, the "verification principle" has yet to fail.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:Paisley

kidvelvet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, others like yourself have expressed the sentiment that philosophical/metaphysical debating is a waste of time (e.g. Bob and Nigel): and yet, they (like yourself) have failed to provide me with a reason why they are debating on this forum.

That was my counterargument. And the fact that you have responded only serves to make my point.

I noticed that you only responded to the second part of the conjunction (the part that you underlined).

I noticed that you are still failing to respond to my counterargument: "This is a debate forum. If you feel so strongly that that philosophical debate is a complete waste of your precious time, then why are you participating on this forum?"

kidvelvet wrote:

The first part is that I argued why I believe the question is irrelevant (or at the very least, has lost its relevancy).

If you believe the question I posed in the OP is irrelevant, then you should not participate in this thread. I suggest you start your own thread and ask a question that you deem to be relevant. Either that, or find another thread to hijack.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:
Only if you admit that Dennett actually affirmed (not denied) the existence of the "elan vital." 

Sorry, Paisley. I must've missed where he did that. Can you give a reference so I can verify this assertion? Because if he did explicitly affirm the existence of a vital force, I am more than willing to admit he explicitly affirmed the existence of a vital force. I have no desire to misrepresent Dennett, or anyone else.

[EDIT addendum]

You know what's funny, Paisley? I figured you'd find some way to avoid answering directly. It's funny how you can't answer a question directly. A simple, "Yes, nigelTheBold, I am willing to take your lame-assed challenge," or, "No, nigelTheBold, because I already know that he has explicitly said he believes subjective experience exists, but I would rather argue something ridiculous than attempt to engage in debate about meaningful matters."

That's all it would've taken.

You have already made the argument on this thread that Dennett compares "qualia" to the "life force" of vitalism. Now, either Dennett is denying the existence of subjective experiences or he is affirming the existence of the life force.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead