Root of all evil

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Root of all evil
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Thursday, February 3 2005 04:11 Profile #250 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: So you're saying that you take them on faith? I take NOTHING on "faith". Never touch the stuff. You seem to be under the impression that we have some choice in the mnatter as far as these first principles are concerned? The reasoin these assum,ptions are "necessary" is because we are FORCED to accept them as a starting point because reasoning cannot be subject to infinite regress of justification by reasoning. Without these axioms, we are just chattering imbecilles sitting around waiting for a death we have no reason to think will come(and then it DOES!). "Faith" is the adherance to a belief/claim in lieu of(or in SPITE of) evidence. quote: [b]If your assumptions are not subject to proof (or verification on the basis of evidence), what makes them any better than anyone else's? [qb] "Better?" They are better only for ME. I do not knock on doors offering "materialist salvation" or somesuch. quote: [qb]You're pretty close to contradicting yourself here. Are your assumptions subject to verification through evidence in the universe or not?[/b] Those necessary "first principles"? No. They are not. Why do you ask? quote: quote: I do not use materialism, idealism, logic or critical thinking to prove or disprove materialism or idealism. Proof by contradiction is a relatively accepted technique. You take a certain set of assumptions and use those assumptions to show their inherent inconsistency. Why dismiss it here? See above. You may enjoy sitting around for the length of you existence asking "How can I prove my reasoning is valid through reasoning?", How can I prove that THAT reasoning is valid throuhg reasoning?" How can I prove that the reasoning which proved the reasoning, which proved my reasoning was valid???" Ad infinitum. Me? I accept that materialism adn teh reasoning which follows from that position is valid and move on. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Thursday, February 3 2005 06:16 Profile Homepage #251 quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: I was only saying it was certain to ME that God did not exist. YOU took it upon yourself to challenge MY certainty. quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: Secondly, we most certainly CAN say that some things do NOT exist adn are quite impossible. It was this realization that drove me from weak atheism(re: lacking a god-belief) to strong atheism(re: Supernatural Gods cannot exist). I can say this because of a little thing called the law of non-contradiction. "God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. In context, this seemed to suggest that objectively gods do not and cannot exist. Are you now are only saying that according to your set of assumptions, gods do not and cannot exist? In other words, to make the distinction that Thuryl does below, are you merely saying "I'm certain," rather than "I'm right"? If so, I do not disagree. However, I do think it is important to note that your set of assumptions are not the only ones that could reasonably be made. [ Thursday, February 03, 2005 06:41: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Thursday, February 3 2005 06:23 Profile Homepage #252 quote: quote: You're not really arguing that when we speak of consciousness existing, we're only speaking metaphorically, are you?[/qb] Kind of...but not really. "exists"(as in "The earth exists." and "exists"(as in "Freedom exists." are two completely different words basically. You are using them interchangeably. Would you be more comfortable if I said that instances of consciousness existed, or do I need to refine my terminology further? quote: quote: (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you hold some kind of functional definition of consciousness, even though it seems to me that such a definition can only be held if one deliberately misses the point of what we mean when we say we're conscious of something.) What do you mean? Saying that my definitions are wrong because I am "missing the point" is a bit...vacuous, isn't it? I mean that your consciousness is qualitatively different to you than the consciousness of other people is to you, because your consciousness is the only consciousness that's accessible to you. That qualitative difference -- the experience of having access to consciousness -- is something that's difficult to describe (and probably impossible to describe in completely objective terms), but I certainly hope that, being conscious yourself, you know what I mean by it. A functional definition of consciousness, that can point out consciousness from the outside without having access to it, seems to me to be missing the most important thing about consciousness, which is that we're conscious of having it. quote: quote: So you're saying that the fact that you believe in matter has nothing to do with the fact that you believe you observe matter in the world around you? I am saying that matter exists adn is not dependent on my observing it. To argue otherwise seems to be highly illogical...an attempt to reverse cause and effect so that thet baseball flying into the catcher's mitt causes the pitcher to throw it, type nonsense. I never said thought caused the existence of matter. I don't see the relation between mind and matter as a causal one. I'd argue that mind and matter are interdependent; neither could meaningfully be said to exist without the other, because mind relies on matter for its perpetuation and matter relies on mind for the definition of its existence. A universe with matter and no conscious observers would not by definition be observably different from a universe with no matter and no conscious observers, because observable differences require observers. And if two things are not observably different, it's only reasonable to say that for all practical purposes they're identical. Therefore, a world with matter and no observers is identical to a world with no matter and no observers -- and therefore matter is dependent for its existence on conscious observation. quote: quote: (I'm closer to a phenomenalist than an idealist, by the way, since I regard thought, perception and consciousness as different subtypes of the same kind of thing. But that's probably of no interest to you.) On the contrary, it is very interesting trying to see where other people are coming from. I thought phenomenalists were a sort of sub-type of idealist(like functionalists are to materialism?)? Am I wrong? Well, idealism has connotations of monism; I'd probably be better categorised as a dualist. quote: quote: I haven't assumed that everything is possible. I merely haven't assumed that anything is impossible; that anything is possible follows from that. So, in other words you assume anything is possible. No. That would be like saying that set theory assumes the existence of arithmetic, or that materialism assumes the existence of Mount Everest. Holding assumptions which imply X is not the same as assuming X. quote: quote: There are, of course, delusional individuals who amass supposed evidence, some real, some hallucinatory, all pointing toward a conclusion which is false to any outside observer but which the individual regards as beyond doubt. You could argue, I suppose, that such individuals invariably have a defect in rationality as well as perception, but I'm not so sure. I will include the caveat that, if I am delusional(and of course I would not be aware of it for purposes of this discussion), then I may still be 100% certain of these things but I would also be wrong. Doesn't change my poistion one iota though. Well, as long as you're not equating "I'm certain" with "I'm right". I don't know how you can retain an objective notion of truth when the criteria by which you judge truth are subjective, though. quote: quote: Above you said that the reason you can be certain of the correspondence of your observations to reality is that those observations consistently reinforce each other. Now you're saying that some observations stand on their own as being beyond doubt. Which is it? No, no, no...remember those "necessary assumptions"? THose MUST be beyond doubt(even if YOURS is that "everything is doubtful"). We cannot, in any way ever get away from this. We simply have no choice in the matter. It matters not whether these necessary assumptions are rooted in observation themselves or not. They are STILL necessary. Are you sure that it's necessary to hold anything as being beyond doubt? I'd argue that the majority of people don't really hold any specific axioms at all -- they just don't think enough about their beliefs to give themselves reason to doubt them. Instead they just wing it and accumulate opinions as they go along without much regard to their consistency. quote: quote: quote: No I did not. I said the dream he claims to have had was unscientific in that it was not part of the scientific process/methodology by which he constructed a theory. You listed "Observation" as the very first item on your laundry list of requirements for the scientific method. If an initial scientific observation is an essential element of the scientific method, then the lack of an adequate scientific observation would mean the method as a whole was unscientific. If it's not an essential element of the scientific method, it didn't belong on the list. It IS essential! Again, can you point to ANY scientific discovery that was made in complete sensory deprivation? I was not attempting to argue that observations weren't necessary at all; merely that it wasn't necessary to make observations before forming a hypothesis. Plenty of hypotheses which turned out to be true were initially formed based on philosophy, ideology or blind hope, and only later supported by evidence. quote: quote: Not necessarily. They could be performing a number of small tests within a limited scope, each scientific on its own, but the whole forming an incomplete picture of the world that seems to support creationism -- following the letter of the scientific method while skirting around the spirit of it. But as soon as they abandon the method...that is the very INSTANT they try to force their little individually correct tests into a wholly unscientific hypothesis, they are not doing science. For example: I hypothesize that the sun emits ultraviolet light-energy(correct). I hypothesize that these ultraviolet rays can be harmful to my skin(correct). I then propose the theory that Apollo hates humanity adn is trying to slowly cook us using the sun(incorrect and unscientific)! You have something of a point here; it'd be very difficult to present a scientific case heavily weighted in the favour of a specific deity. I do think that by applying a somewhat biased outlook to the evidence, it's possible to find support for a generalised intelligent-design theory (although I suppose even if there were overwhelming support for ID, you'd look for extraterrestrials before gods). quote: quote: (I have to say, though, your definitions seem a little circular. A "brain" is an object capable of thinking, and "thinking" is what a brain does?) YEah but what can you do...? "Legs" are appendages which enaable "walking" and "walking" is what legged things do. Same diff'. That sounds like a rather silly argument to me. "Kicking" is also something legged things do, but it's obviously not the same action as "walking". Are you really arguing that the action of thinking has no definable properties other than being a function of the brain? [ Thursday, February 03, 2005 06:25: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Thursday, February 3 2005 06:52 Profile #253 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: I was only saying it was certain to ME that God did not exist. YOU took it upon yourself to challenge MY certainty. quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: Secondly, we most certainly CAN say that some things do NOT exist adn are quite impossible. It was this realization that drove me from weak atheism(re: lacking a god-belief) to strong atheism(re: Supernatural Gods cannot exist). I can say this because of a little thing called the law of non-contradiction. "God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. In context, this seemed to suggest that objectively gods do not and cannot exist. Are you now are only saying that according to your set of assumptions, gods do not and cannot exist? In other words, to make the distinction that Thuryl does below, are you merely saying "I'm certain," rather than "I'm right"? If so, I do not disagree. However, I do think it is important to note that your set of assumptions are not the only ones that could reasonably be made. Correct. I erred(I suppose) in assuming that people here generally accepted that something cannot be self-contradictory in it's own existence( being both "round" and "not at all round" at the same time for example). Therefore you can take my assertion of certainty with the caveat that it only applies to those, like myself, who accept the law of non-contradiction. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Thursday, February 3 2005 07:50 Profile #254 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: [quote] [quote]You're not really arguing that when we speak of consciousness existing, we're only speaking metaphorically, are you? Kind of...but not really. "exists"(as in "The earth exists." and "exists"(as in "Freedom exists." are two completely different words basically. You are using them interchangeably.[/quote]Would you be more comfortable if I said that instances of consciousness existed, or do I need to refine my terminology further?[/qb][/quote]No...you don't seem to understadn what I am saying. YOUR usage of "exists"(in regards to "consciousness existing") is to MY usage of "exists"(as in "matter exists") as the word "rose"(a type of budding flower) is to "rose"(as in "He rose up to see what time it was". Some people "believe" in Jesus. They believe he literally exists/existed and is the son of God. Some people "believe" in Jesus. They believe in the teachings/morals, as they interpret them, even if the Christ is complete fiction. The latter "believe" in Jesus the way I believe in freedom or justice. The former believe in Jesus the way I accept that rocks and trees exist(only they use "faith" and I use rationality). Instances of consciousness do not exist anymore than instances of walking exist. quote: I mean that your consciousness is qualitatively different to you than the consciousness of other people is to you, because your consciousness is the only consciousness that's accessible to you. That qualitative difference -- the experience of having access to consciousness -- is something that's difficult to describe (and probably impossible to describe in completely objective terms), but I certainly hope that, being conscious yourself, you know what I mean by it. Well, yeah...but so what? MY experience of walking is different than the walking I observe others to do but does it matter? I can understand the mechanisms involved adn see that they walk just as I do. quote: A functional definition of consciousness, that can point out consciousness from the outside without having access to it, seems to me to be missing the most important thing about consciousness, which is that we're conscious of having it. I see where you are coming from...I just don't place the same importance on this as you do. TO ME this is, at best, an incidental consideration. quote: I never said thought caused the existence of matter. I don't see the relation between mind and matter as a causal one. I'd argue that mind and matter are interdependent; neither could meaningfully be said to exist without the other, because mind relies on matter for its perpetuation and matter relies on mind for the definition of its existence. A universe with matter and no conscious observers would not by definition be observably different from a universe with no matter and no conscious observers, because observable differences require observers. Okay, I getcha. I would agree that nothing can be "meaningful" without "observers" for which the term would apply. I have never doubted this. MY whole point was that matter would exist, even if this fact itself had no "meaning" do to lack of minds/observers to appreciate the existence. May or may not seem an unimportant point from your perspective though. quote: And if two things are not observably different, it's only reasonable to say that for all practical purposes they're identical. Ah, see this I would disagree with but again, it's not something we can objectively resolve. To ME, this argument of yours indicates that if there is no one around to see the rock, then the rock vanishes in some poof of logic, which I whole-heartedly contend. Remember, unthinking matter preceded the existence of thinking matter(brains) and therefore "minds". It is all an infinite regress of evolution(not just biological evolution here). quote: Therefore, a world with matter and no observers is identical to a world with no matter and no observers -- and therefore matter is dependent for its existence on conscious observation. Nope. Not in my book. I cannot even see how you arrive at that conclusion?! It seems contradicted by every observance we make. If your argument here had sense then we should expect that things which I, personally do not observe should cease existing for others as well and be unobservable. Since we know that this is not true and you observe things to exist which I am unware of, it stands to reason that if we subtract every single observer down to the last, it does not cause matter to vanish. It just means that we are not around to appreciate "existence". quote: Well, idealism has connotations of monism; I'd probably be better categorised as a dualist. I stand corrected then. quote: quote: So, in other words you assume anything is possible. No. That would be like saying that set theory assumes the existence of arithmetic, or that materialism assumes the existence of Mount Everest. Holding assumptions which imply X is not the same as assuming X. My only beef here is that, it seems to me that you are simply rewording the assertion that "anything is possible" as "Nothing is impossible" and then making the argument above. To my mind you are making the same statement no matter how you reword it "God doesn't NOT exist" is not just an assumption that implies God's existence. It is an assertion that God exists! quote: Well, as long as you're not equating "I'm certain" with "I'm right". I don't know how you can retain an objective notion of truth when the criteria by which you judge truth are subjective, though. Subjective by YOUR evaluation. Doesn't get anymore OBJECTIVE by MINE. :D . But no, "I am convinced" doesn't = "I am right". quote: Are you sure that it's necessary to hold anything as being beyond doubt? Yes. quote: I'd argue that the majority of people don't really hold any specific axioms at all -- they just don't think enough about their beliefs to give themselves reason to doubt them. Instead they just wing it and accumulate opinions as they go along without much regard to their consistency. I would agree that most are not consciouly and actively thinking about such things, but nonetheless they adopt axioms like the rest of us. In any case, isn't this an ad numeri? quote: I was not attempting to argue that observations weren't necessary at all; merely that it wasn't necessary to make observations before forming a hypothesis. Plenty of hypotheses which turned out to be true were initially formed based on philosophy, ideology or blind hope, and only later supported by evidence. Even if I grant this it does not change the fact that the SCIENTIFIC portion of their hypothesizing/theorizing did not include their "blind hope", "dreaming" "wishing" and what not. quote: You have something of a point here; it'd be very difficult to present a scientific case heavily weighted in the favour of a specific deity. I do think that by applying a somewhat biased outlook to the evidence, it's possible to find support for a generalised intelligent-design theory (although I suppose even if there were overwhelming support for ID, you'd look for extraterrestrials before gods). I would disagree even with this. In order to conclude that the universe was designed would take a WILLFUL disregard for the errors in thinking pointed out to the ID theorist. A dismissal of peer review and disregard for one's own logical fallacies in favor of a desired conclusion. That is not science! The only way to conclude "design" is to presuppose the state of existence as a desired/intentional outcome without regards for rules of inference. quote: That sounds like a rather silly argument to me. "Kicking" is also something legged things do, but it's obviously not the same action as "walking". Are you really arguing that the action of thinking has no definable properties other than being a function of the brain? Does it matter whether you use "walking" or "kicking"? Does it change my point at all? I am only arguing that the action of thinking is NOT itself an existential thing, but an ACTION. ACTIONS do not exist in ANY sense without the thing that performs said action. There would be no "kicking" or "walking" without "legs". There would be no "thinking" without "brains". [ Thursday, February 03, 2005 07:59: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Thursday, February 3 2005 09:42 Profile #255 Brief Question- Sorry to break in. quote: "God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. How do you see God as a contradiction? You use the example round square but round is defined as "not strait" to be loose, and square is the opposite. Is God defined to you as the existant non-existant? Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Thursday, February 3 2005 13:14 Profile Homepage #256 Yes, I would like to hear why the concept of a "god" is self-contradictory. If you claim that the concept is self-contradictory, the onus is on you to prove it — rather than saying that one does or does not exist, in which case we could debate on whom the onus rests. I would like to see such a proof. To be clear: I am talking about the general case of any sort of god, as defined by common usage of the word "god." -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Thursday, February 3 2005 15:52 Profile #257 quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: I take NOTHING on "faith". Never touch the stuff. You seem to be under the impression that we have some choice in the mnatter as far as these first principles are concerned? The reasoin these assum,ptions are "necessary" is because we are FORCED to accept them as a starting point because reasoning cannot be subject to infinite regress of justification by reasoning. Without these axioms, we are just chattering imbecilles sitting around waiting for a death we have no reason to think will come(and then it DOES!). "Faith" is the adherance to a belief/claim in lieu of(or in SPITE of) evidence. "FAITH" is to trust a belief/claim in the absence of corrobarating evidence. By not logically proving the existence of matter, you take it on FAITH, or assume, that it exists. Although it is true that matter exists, by assuming it and not proving it, you invalidate all derivations thereof. quote: John Locke, "An Essay On Human Understanding", Book I, Chapter II 1. No moral principles so clear and so generally received as the forementioned speculative maxims. If those speculative Maxims, whereof we discoursed in the foregoing chapter, have not an actual universal assent from all mankind, as we there proved, it is much more visible concerning practical Principles, that they come short of an universal reception: and I think it will be hard to instance any one moral rule which can pretend to so general and ready an assent as, "What is, is"; or to be so manifest a truth as this, that "It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be." Whereby it is evident that they are further removed from a title to be innate; and the doubt of their being native impressions on the mind is stronger against those moral principles than the other. Not that it brings their truth at all in question. They are equally true, though not equally evident. Those speculative maxims carry their own evidence with them: but moral principles require reasoning and discourse, and some exercise of the mind, to discover the certainty of their truth. They lie not open as natural characters engraven on the mind; which, if any such were, they must needs be visible by themselves, and by their own light be certain and known to everybody. But this is no derogation to their truth and certainty; no more than it is to the truth or certainty of the three angles of a triangle being equal to two right ones: because it is not so evident as "the whole is bigger than a part," nor so apt to be assented to at first hearing. It may suffice that these moral rules are capable of demonstration: and therefore it is our own faults if we come not to a certain knowledge of them. But the ignorance wherein many men are of them, and the slowness of assent wherewith others receive them, are manifest proofs that they are not innate, and such as offer themselves to their view without searching. Thuryl: You say your a dualist, so I guess I can ask you this. I don't quite get dualism, but as I understand it, it applies to any philosophy that contains an idea in its purity, and its antithesis. Is this at all correct? [ Thursday, February 03, 2005 18:29: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Thursday, February 3 2005 16:21 Profile Homepage #258 quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: Thuryl: You say your a dualist, so I guess I can ask you this. I don't quite get dualism, but as I understand it, it applies to any philosophy that contains an idea in its purity, and its antithesis. Is this at all correct? Not really. Dualism at its most basic is really just the belief that the universe consists of two types of substance, neither of which is completely reducible to the other. They don't necessarily have to be regarded as opposites. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Thursday, February 3 2005 17:07 Profile Homepage #259 quote: No...you don't seem to understadn what I am saying. YOUR usage of "exists"(in regards to "consciousness existing") is to MY usage of "exists"(as in "matter exists") as the word "rose"(a type of budding flower) is to "rose"(as in "He rose up to see what time it was". Some people "believe" in Jesus. They believe he literally exists/existed and is the son of God. Instances of consciousness do not exist anymore than instances of walking exist. Okay, it seems we disagree about the meaning of "exist". An instance of walking is an observable phenomenon just the same as the legs doing the walking are; I don't see where one draws the distinction and says that one exists while the other doesn't. quote: Well, yeah...but so what? MY experience of walking is different than the walking I observe others to do but does it matter? I can understand the mechanisms involved adn see that they walk just as I do. The mechanisms involved have no value on their own, because value itself requires consciousness to define it. Without consciousness, nothing has value. Therefore consciousness is, to me, of supreme importance. quote: I see where you are coming from...I just don't place the same importance on this as you do. TO ME this is, at best, an incidental consideration. Conscious isn't important to you? I'm sure you'd object rather strongly to being rendered permanently unconscious. quote: Okay, I getcha. I would agree that nothing can be "meaningful" without "observers" for which the term would apply. I have never doubted this. MY whole point was that matter would exist, even if this fact itself had no "meaning" do to lack of minds/observers to appreciate the existence. May or may not seem an unimportant point from your perspective though. If a fact doesn't have any meaning, I'm not sure how you can call it a fact. quote: Ah, see this I would disagree with but again, it's not something we can objectively resolve. To ME, this argument of yours indicates that if there is no one around to see the rock, then the rock vanishes in some poof of logic, which I whole-heartedly contend. See, I'm not arguing that the rock doesn't exist in the absence of observation either. I'm saying that in the absence of observers, there's no way to assign any truth value at all to the rock's existence. I'm not saying that the rock disappears the minute one turns one's back, but that it or some consequence of its existence has to be observed at some point before it can meaningfully be said to exist. quote: quote: Therefore, a world with matter and no observers is identical to a world with no matter and no observers -- and therefore matter is dependent for its existence on conscious observation. Nope. Not in my book. I cannot even see how you arrive at that conclusion?! It seems contradicted by every observance we make. Exactly. And without observers, those observations which contradict it wouldn't exist. quote: If your argument here had sense then we should expect that things which I, personally do not observe should cease existing for others as well and be unobservable. I'm not saying things cease to exist as soon as you cease to observe them. I am saying that if something is never observed in the first place there's no meaningful difference between it existing and not existing. quote: My only beef here is that, it seems to me that you are simply rewording the assertion that "anything is possible" as "Nothing is impossible" and then making the argument above. To my mind you are making the same statement no matter how you reword it "God doesn't NOT exist" is not just an assumption that implies God's existence. It is an assertion that God exists! I have to acknowledge there's always the possibility that the axioms I use for reasoning will turn out to be inconsistent, in which case they can prove literally anything. This is a general problem with formal systems and not specific to any particular system of axioms. quote: I would agree that most are not consciouly and actively thinking about such things, but nonetheless they adopt axioms like the rest of us. This relies on the assumption that the mind as a whole is a formal system, which isn't the case. Certainly, anyone who adopts a formalised reasoning process needs axioms, but many people never do so. quote: In any case, isn't this an ad numeri? You argued that axioms were necessary in order to get things done. If people can get things done without axioms, your argument falls apart. quote: Even if I grant this it does not change the fact that the SCIENTIFIC portion of their hypothesizing/theorizing did not include their "blind hope", "dreaming" "wishing" and what not. So would you regard a discovery found through a hypothesis based on a lucky guess but proven by going through the rest of the scientific method as being a scientific discovery? If so, then "Observation" should be struck off the start of the list as being unnecessary as an initial step. (What DOES constitute a scientific initial observation, anyway? An initial observation by its very nature is serendipitous and unlooked-for.) quote: I would disagree even with this. In order to conclude that the universe was designed would take a WILLFUL disregard for the errors in thinking pointed out to the ID theorist. A dismissal of peer review and disregard for one's own logical fallacies in favor of a desired conclusion. That is not science! You didn't include "Peer Review" in your initial laundry list of requirements for the scientific method. quote: Does it matter whether you use "walking" or "kicking"? Does it change my point at all? It matters that I'm able to use either, because it means that "legged activity" is an inadequate definition of "walking", and I'm arguing that "brain activity" is likewise an inadequate definition of thinking. quote: I am only arguing that the action of thinking is NOT itself an existential thing, but an ACTION. ACTIONS do not exist in ANY sense without the thing that performs said action. There would be no "kicking" or "walking" without "legs". There would be no "thinking" without "brains". That's all very well as far as it goes, but the fact that thinking is done by brains doesn't tell us everything worth knowing about thinking, which is why I regard your definition of "thinking" as incomplete. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, February 4 2005 04:04 Profile #260 quote: Originally written by m's provocation: Brief Question- Sorry to break in. quote: "God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. How do you see God as a contradiction? You use the example round square but round is defined as "not strait" to be loose, and square is the opposite. Is God defined to you as the existant non-existant? There are basically THREE types of gods proposed by theists. The first is a naturally occuring phenomenom like the sun, the moon, Divine Emperors(inc. Kim Jong Il, Gaius Ceaser etc.) or even the universe itself. Sometimes this "mundane god" is something as innocuous as an emotional state or feeling like "Trust" or "Hope". My answer to this type of God is that I do not call such things "gods". I know full well that they exist but I do not willingly WORSHIP such things as gods. The second type of god is the "Transcendent God". These gods are most definately supernatural, quite literally defined as "beyond knowing". These types of God-proposals earn the "transcendent" label rather than simply being called so from the get-go. They start out as being attributed impossibly illogical traits such as being themselves free-willed and at the same time "omniscient" or omnibenevolent as well as omnipresent. There are hundreds more examples (i.e. "All merciful" and "all just") but it is only when the logical impossibilities are pointed out and clearly explained to the theist that he pulls our the "transcendent nature" argument(not really an argument but that's another isssue). Basically saying that it is not that God CANNOT do these impossible things or have these impossible traits(be both 'A' and 'not A') or even that these traits are not logically consistent. The fault is with US for being ill-equipped to make sense of God's reality which is not the same as humanity's reality. Basically, God is not bound/constrained by logic, physics, etc. The third type of God proposed is what I will call here "Kelandon's God" or "The God of Ambiguity". This God seeks to escape being proven or disproven by being undefined on ANY level. "Powerful but not ALL powerful." "Wise but not all-knowing." "Not omnipresent but just happens to be wherever you are not looking at the moment." "Creator of the universe." Never is the God of ambiguity given a definition that allows us to distinguish what it may be from, say, a "Snozzwoggler". This type of God often morphs into the first type(the "natural phenomenom God") when pressed. We will sometimes be told what the God of Ambiguity is NOT but never what he IS in any meaningful way. He is alleged to have done impressive things but no mechanism is given to explain HOW he does these things(such as creating the universe or knowing my thoughts or somesuch). So basically, Gods must either be non-gods or "round square" gods or meaningless words. The transcendent God is nonsensical because it is said to exist adn at the same time not be bound by any of the constraints which define existence(e.g. not bound by linear time, able to systematically violate physical laws(which would mean that no such laws exist) in stereotypical ways etc.) [ Friday, February 04, 2005 06:17: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, February 4 2005 05:00 Profile #261 quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: I take NOTHING on "faith". Never touch the stuff. You seem to be under the impression that we have some choice in the mnatter as far as these first principles are concerned? The reason these assumptions are "necessary" is because we are FORCED to accept them as a starting point because reasoning cannot be subject to infinite regress of justification by reasoning. Without these axioms, we are just chattering imbecilles sitting around waiting for a death we have no reason to think will come(and then it DOES!). "Faith" is the adherance to a belief/claim in lieu of(or in SPITE of) evidence. "FAITH" is to trust a belief/claim in the absence of corrobarating evidence. Ah, I see the "Meaning fairy" made the rounds recently. The meaning fairy is a gossamer-winged sprite who confers objective adn indisputable meanings to words that do not shift with context, usage, speaker or audience. I have never been visited by the meaning fairy so I just use the most essential definitions I can find by MY subjective evaluation. In any case though this is hardly worth quibbling. Your definition is essentially a rewording of mine.Shrug quote: By not logically proving the existence of matter, you take it on FAITH, or assume, that it exists. No, beyond the aforementioned "necessary assumptions" I do not assume anything. I Accept that matter exists. We have to make a distinction hee between "faithful assumptions"(i.e. "I know he is innocent because I know my brother!") and things which we accpet as true because to do otherwise would require a great deal of "faith"(i.e. "I exist." or "We are not just figments of some genie's imagination."). It would take a great deal of faith for me to think that matter does not exist adn since I do not ever use "faith", i cannot take such a position. (Lengthy quoting of Locke snipped as it bore no relevance for me) -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Friday, February 4 2005 05:50 Profile Homepage #262 SkeleTony, that was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. You can't handle the general case. Why don't you just admit that the concept of god is not inherently self-contradictory? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, February 4 2005 06:06 Profile #263 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: quote: No...you don't seem to understand what I am saying. YOUR usage of "exists"(in regards to "consciousness existing") is to MY usage of "exists"(as in "matter exists") as the word "rose"(a type of budding flower) is to "rose"(as in "He rose up to see what time it was". Some people "believe" in Jesus. They believe he literally exists/existed and is the son of God. Instances of consciousness do not exist anymore than instances of walking exist. Okay, it seems we disagree about the meaning of "exist". An instance of walking is an observable phenomenon just the same as the legs doing the walking are; I don't see where one draws the distinction and says that one exists while the other doesn't. The legs would exist whether they were walking or not. The walking would not exist without the legs. One has a dependent existence and one has an independent existence. quote: The mechanisms involved have no value on their own, because value itself requires consciousness to define it. Yeah...so? quote: Without consciousness, nothing has value. Therefore consciousness is, to me, of supreme importance. No value to YOU(the conscious observer) but again, so what? I do not really care about the obvious and somewhat irrelevant point that there is no "value" without an "evaluator". quote: Conscious isn't important to you? Now Thuryl...YOU should know better than trying to pull out the strawman adn beat on him like that! :D quote: I'm sure you'd object rather strongly to being rendered permanently unconscious. I would also object to being ear-raped by a tone-def accordianist but what does that have to do with the discussion? quote: If a fact doesn't have any meaning, I'm not sure how you can call it a fact. No meaning TO YOU! Read that once more: TO YOU! A woman I do not know gets into an accident I am unaware of in a place I have never been. The event has no meaning for ME because I am unware of it. It is STILL A FACT, EVEN if NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD was aware of what happpened to her. There was a time in the early goings of our universe when no consciousness existed(brained creatures had not evolved yet) adn still matter existed. Was this not important? Was it not a fact because you were not around to observe it? If so, then where did we come from? We just popped into existence from eternal nothingness? quote: See, I'm not arguing that the rock doesn't exist in the absence of observation either. I'm saying that in the absence of observers, there's no way to assign any truth value at all to the rock's existence. And again I ask you, what is the point of this? I have never argued any aspect of "truth value" or whether such can be had without evaluators/observers. In the context of this discussion, I simply do not care about this irrelevant point. quote: I'm not saying that the rock disappears the minute one turns one's back, but that it or some consequence of its existence has to be observed at some point before it can meaningfully be said to exist. So? The point is that it still exists whether anyone could meaningfully say so or not. Since WE DO exist and are having this diuscussion, your point is irrelevant. It is a somewhat nonsensical thing you are arguing. You object to my assertion that something cannot be 'A' and Not A' and the argument you give is that something cannot be 'A' and not A'(re:something cannot be evaluated without an evaluator)!?!? THis alone would be one thing but coupled with the fact that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my positions in the first place...! quote: [b]Therefore, a world with matter and no observers is identical to a world with no matter and no observers -- and therefore matter is dependent for its existence on conscious observation. Nope. Not in my book. I cannot even see how you arrive at that conclusion?! It seems contradicted by every observance we make.[/QUOTE]Exactly. And without observers, those observations which contradict it wouldn't exist.[/b][/quote] Doesn't follow. You make an illogical leap from your premises to your conclusion. Your premises: 1)Things cannot be assigned "meanings" without things capable of assigning meanings.(Correct) 2) Matter exists and some material things are capable of observation and evaluation(assigning meaning to things they observe).(Correct) Your conclusion: Both matter and things emergent from matter(actions) have a dependent existence. Does not logically follow from your premises and seems to contradict other assertions your have made(you agreed, for instance, that matter did not cease to exist without observers). The only way to make your case here is to show something along the lines of legs being emergent from "walking" or that matter not exist without conscious observers of said matter. It matters NOT that without said observers there would be no one to assign meaning to it's existence. It would still exist even if the word "exist" was no in use because no sentient creatures had evolved. quote: I'm not saying things cease to exist as soon as you cease to observe them. I am saying that if something is never observed in the first place there's no meaningful difference between it existing and not existing. Sure there is. 10 billion years ago the universe existed and we did not(yet). Turns out this was FAR different than no universe existing at all. quote: I have to acknowledge there's always the possibility that the axioms I use for reasoning will turn out to be inconsistent, in which case they can prove literally anything. This is a general problem with formal systems and not specific to any particular system of axioms. Probably right. quote: quote: In any case, isn't this an ad numeri? You argued that axioms were necessary in order to get things done. If people can get things done without axioms, your argument falls apart. Maybe, but thus far this has not been demonstrated. SO far everyone adopts axioms in order to do even mundane things like get ready for work in the morning. They do not employ formalk reasoning or any such thing but the effect is the same. quote: So would you regard a discovery found through a hypothesis based on a lucky guess but proven by going through the rest of the scientific method as being a scientific discovery? You asked two seperate questions there. THe answer to the first question is "No. Lucky guesses are NOT part of doing science.". The answer to teh second question is "Yes. Working through the stages of testing, falsifiaction, etc. IS doing science." quote: If so, then "Observation" should be struck off the start of the list as being unnecessary as an initial step. (What DOES constitute a scientific initial observation, anyway? An initial observation by its very nature is serendipitous and unlooked-for.) Observations are not themselves necessarily scientific or not-scientific. But they ARE required to do science. There are no scientists called "Dragonologists" who study fire-breathing, cave dwelling, winged lizards because there is no (concurrent)observation of such things to exist. When villages end up burned to the ground, Occam's razor shows that barbarians or insurgents or natural disasters are at work, not dragons. quote: You didn't include "Peer Review" in your initial laundry list of requirements for the scientific method. I probably did not include a few things. I believe I DID include an "etc." did I not? In any case you keep harping on my "laundry list" as if it were meant to be the be all adn end all conclusive definition of scietific methodlogy or something. quote: It matters that I'm able to use either, because it means that "legged activity" is an inadequate definition of "walking", and I'm arguing that "brain activity" is likewise an inadequate definition of thinking. Walk v. (1)To move or cause to move on foot at a pace slower than a run. Think v. (1)To have or formulate in the mind.(2A) To Ponder. (2B) To Reason. Mind n. (1)The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested esp. in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. Any questions? Good. I am not trying to prove my case by pointing to the American Heritage Dictionary definitions BTW. It just seems you are having difficulties with my off-the-cuff summations, choosing to mitpick at side issues and such. SO these will be the definitions I am going by for my purposes here. Notice I did not pick and choose from the entires to find whatever supported my case while ignoring otehr important entries. I just went with the first entry from each definition. quote: That's all very well as far as it goes, but the fact that thinking is done by brains doesn't tell us everything worth knowing about thinking, which is why I regard your definition of "thinking" as incomplete. I get the same argument from creationists against evolution. It goes something like this: "Evolution cannot tell us what created the universe, what my purpose in life is, where I am going(when I die) or why I should strive for...(Blah, blah, rant, rave)." I usually answer this by saying "neither can plumbing. Therefore, when your faucet is leaky you should not call a plumber but instead consult the Bible." Besides, it is arguable whether my definition of thinking tells us everything that is worth knowing about thinking or not. You have given us a groundless assertion here. [ Friday, February 04, 2005 06:08: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, February 4 2005 06:11 Profile #264 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: SkeleTony, that was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. You can't handle the general case. Why don't you just admit that the concept of god is not inherently self-contradictory? I will take this as a concession then. If you cannot answer my points/arguments then be a bigger man/woman(I do not know your gender) and say so but to withdraw shouting "cop out" and the like is chiken-s#!t. [ Friday, February 04, 2005 06:12: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, February 4 2005 07:21 Profile #265 quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: quote: By not logically proving the existence of matter, you take it on FAITH, or assume, that it exists. No, beyond the aforementioned "necessary assumptions" I do not assume anything. I Accept that matter exists. We have to make a distinction hee between "faithful assumptions"(i.e. "I know he is innocent because I know my brother!") and things which we accpet as true because to do otherwise would require a great deal of "faith"(i.e. "I exist." or "We are not just figments of some genie's imagination."). If you accept a claim based on no evidence, which you say your axioms do not have, you take it on faith. You are specifically ignoring this fact, and by doing so rationalize for the survival of your fundamentally flawed philosophy. Matterialism in its essence is the objective assumption that matter exists and can explain all phenomena. This assumption, while at times true, holds no meaning to those in the subjective realm, as we can only see things through our viewpoint. Now, it can be proved that matter exists through the senses. We feel it, we smell it, we see it, so it must exist. But to do so would mean to define and prove the senses, and that which uses them (CONSCIOUSNESS). This would fundamentally separate the concept of mind and matter thereby contradicting the base idea of materialism. For this reason all materialists do not prove the existence of matter. They consider it a "neccessary assumption" which is essentially just a rationalization created by those who cannot accept the fallacy of their belief system. This act of rationalizing completely invalidates the entire concept of materialism even though some of its ideas ring true. As for the reference to Locke: That quote was Locke's justification for the rejection of Immanuel Kant's idea of innate ideas. Although innate ideas can be true, they hold no ground as they have no proof. To be accepted as both true and EVIDENT, an idea must be examined by a CONSCIOUSNESS. [ Friday, February 04, 2005 12:15: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Friday, February 4 2005 07:44 Profile #266 quote: It is only when the logical impossibilities are pointed out and clearly explained to the theist that he pulls our the "transcendent nature" argument(not really an argument but that's another isssue). I doubt that many theists would claim it to be a logical argument. Thats rather the point. They dispute the system that you use to evaluate God/"god" and then you use the same system to evaluate their dispute. Sounds cyclical. Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, February 4 2005 12:51 Profile Homepage #267 quote: The legs would exist whether they were walking or not. The walking would not exist without the legs. One has a dependent existence and one has an independent existence. Why is this distinction so important to you? The legs themselves wouldn't exist if the person with them had never been born, so in a sense the legs' existence are also dependent on something. The only difference is that the thing they depend on is a prior event rather than a currently-existing object. quote: quote: I'm sure you'd object rather strongly to being rendered permanently unconscious. I would also object to being ear-raped by a tone-def accordianist but what does that have to do with the discussion? If something is important, it's worth including in a philosophy. Your philosophy seems to exclude the subjective aspect of consciousness. quote: quote: If a fact doesn't have any meaning, I'm not sure how you can call it a fact. No meaning TO YOU! Read that once more: TO YOU! I agree that my own existence is not specifically necessary for things to have any meaning. However, if there were no conscious beings whatsoever, then nothing would have any meaning to anybody -- since a proposition can't have a truth value unless it's meaningful, this means that without conscious beings, there are no facts. (In fact, without conscious beings there isn't even the fact that there are no facts, because that would require assigning a truth value to the proposition "There are no facts", which can't be done in the absence of conscious beings.) quote: There was a time in the early goings of our universe when no consciousness existed(brained creatures had not evolved yet) adn still matter existed. Was this not important? Was it not a fact because you were not around to observe it? It is a fact, but only because we are observing it now. If we never came into existence so as to observe it, it would not be a fact. By existing, we have retrospectively assigned existence to everything that existed before us. Unless someone at some point forms the concept of existence, nothing can exist. quote: quote: See, I'm not arguing that the rock doesn't exist in the absence of observation either. I'm saying that in the absence of observers, there's no way to assign any truth value at all to the rock's existence. And again I ask you, what is the point of this? I have never argued any aspect of "truth value" or whether such can be had without evaluators/observers. If the proposition "X exists" has no truth value, you can't correctly say that X exists. quote: So? The point is that it still exists whether anyone could meaningfully say so or not. I don't even regard the above statement as being meaningful. To say "X exists even though X's existence does not, never has had, and never will have any consequences for conscious beings" seems like a contradiction to me. quote: Since WE DO exist and are having this diuscussion, your point is irrelevant. It is a somewhat nonsensical thing you are arguing. You object to my assertion that something cannot be 'A' and Not A' and the argument you give is that something cannot be 'A' and not A'(re:something cannot be evaluated without an evaluator)!?!? THis alone would be one thing but coupled with the fact that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my positions in the first place...! It has everything to do with my positions. Essentially, I define "existing" as "being observable or having observable consequences", because it's the only definition I've ever seen that doesn't involve ontological handwaving. How do you define it? quote: Your premises: 1)Things cannot be assigned "meanings" without things capable of assigning meanings.(Correct) 2) Matter exists and some material things are capable of observation and evaluation(assigning meaning to things they observe).(Correct) Your conclusion: Both matter and things emergent from matter(actions) have a dependent existence. Part of the problem seems to be that I simply don't accept that there's an important distinction between your ideas of dependent and independent existence. quote: Sure there is. 10 billion years ago the universe existed and we did not(yet). Turns out this was FAR different than no universe existing at all. But only because we eventually existed. If we never came to exist, we couldn't assign existence to anything else. quote: Maybe, but thus far this has not been demonstrated. SO far everyone adopts axioms in order to do even mundane things like get ready for work in the morning. They do not employ formalk reasoning or any such thing but the effect is the same. The very concept of an axiom is only meaningful in a formal system. If people really held axioms in their minds as a whole, they'd never be able to change them -- people can and do change the axiomatic systems they use for reasoning, which shows that the axioms of their reasoning weren't the axioms of their minds. I'd argue that the mind as a whole can't have axioms, because minds aren't formal systems. [quote] quote: So would you regard a discovery found through a hypothesis based on a lucky guess but proven by going through the rest of the scientific method as being a scientific discovery? quote: You asked two seperate questions there. If you regard the scientific method as a single, unified conceptual object, they're one question, because if one fails to follow one part of a method one has failed to follow the method as a whole. If you don't regard the scientific method as a single concept, you shouldn't call it a method. quote: THe answer to the first question is "No. Lucky guesses are NOT part of doing science.". The answer to teh second question is "Yes. Working through the stages of testing, falsifiaction, etc. IS doing science." Do you actually hold a unified concept of a "scientific discovery" at all? It seems that you don't. I simply assumed that the "scientific method" you described was a system for evaluating where a discovery was scientifically sound, and that it would be declared so if and only if the discovery occurred through the application of the scientific method as a whole -- otherwise, it's not a method but merely a set of unrelated actions, and then there's no way to evaluate whether a discovery is scientifically sound and can be relied on for future work. quote: Observations are not themselves necessarily scientific or not-scientific. But they ARE required to do science. There are no scientists called "Dragonologists" who study fire-breathing, cave dwelling, winged lizards because there is no (concurrent)observation of such things to exist. When villages end up burned to the ground, Occam's razor shows that barbarians or insurgents or natural disasters are at work, not dragons. It's becoming increasingly clear that I somehow misinterpreted the purpose of your laundry list. I assumed that, in your view, one could simply assess whether a discovery was scientific by checking: Was the line of research based initially on an observation? Was a hypothesis formed? etc. Apparently you're not arguing that this is the case, in which case I question the utility of your scientific method for anything at all. If this procedure of checking for the presence of every step isn't the way to assess whether a discovery can be relied on scientifically, what is? (Or perhaps you meant for your scientific method to be purely prescriptive rather than having a descriptive element, in which case it would be no use for the purposes of peer review.) quote: I probably did not include a few things. I believe I DID include an "etc." did I not? In any case you keep harping on my "laundry list" as if it were meant to be the be all adn end all conclusive definition of scietific methodlogy or something. It certainly isn't* a conclusive or adequate definition of scientific methodology, and that's what I've been trying to show. You argued that the scientific method is something that's clearly defined and widely known, and you argued as if you yourself held a clear definition of what it was. It seems as if at least the latter is not the case. quote: Walk v. (1)To move or cause to move on foot at a pace slower than a run. Think v. (1)To have or formulate in the mind.(2A) To Ponder. (2B) To Reason. Mind n. (1)The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested esp. in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. Any questions? Good. You'll notice that the definition of "thought" there effectively includes the concept of consciousness as well as the brain. Now we're getting somewhere. quote: I am not trying to prove my case by pointing to the American Heritage Dictionary definitions BTW. It just seems you are having difficulties with my off-the-cuff summations, choosing to mitpick at side issues and such. SO these will be the definitions I am going by for my purposes here. It's my opinion that the scope of human knowledge is profoundly incomplete without a philosophy of thought that extends considerably further than dictionary definitions. quote: I get the same argument from creationists against evolution. It goes something like this: "Evolution cannot tell us what created the universe, what my purpose in life is, where I am going(when I die) or why I should strive for...(Blah, blah, rant, rave)." I usually answer this by saying "neither can plumbing. Therefore, when your faucet is leaky you should not call a plumber but instead consult the Bible." So we need a different psychological tool for each job (science for assessing truth values, something else for describing subjective experiences)? That's unappealing to me. My goal has always been to hold a unified philosophy that's useful for any purpose I might want to turn it to. quote: Besides, it is arguable whether my definition of thinking tells us everything that is worth knowing about thinking or not. You have given us a groundless assertion here. How can your definition of thinking tell us all that's worth knowing about thinking when it doesn't even include the ability (which is surely an aspect of thinking) to assess things as being worth knowing? [ Friday, February 04, 2005 12:53: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, February 4 2005 13:02 Profile Homepage #268 quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: quote: Originally written by Kelandon: SkeleTony, that was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. You can't handle the general case. Why don't you just admit that the concept of god is not inherently self-contradictory? I will take this as a concession then. If you cannot answer my points/arguments then be a bigger man/woman(I do not know your gender) and say so but to withdraw shouting "cop out" and the like is chiken-s#!t. He made a perfectly reasonable point, which is that you failed to prove the general case. Either you have to individually disprove the possibility of the existence of every deity in the Hindu, Greek, Sumerian, Norse, etc. pantheons, or you have to provide some general disproof of the possibility of a concept which encompasses every god in every one of those pantheons. [ Friday, February 04, 2005 13:49: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Saturday, February 5 2005 10:46 Profile #269 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: quote: The legs would exist whether they were walking or not. The walking would not exist without the legs. One has a dependent existence and one has an independent existence. Why is this distinction so important to you? Because it is the crux of YOUR challenges to materialism in here. You are arguing that the existence of matter is dependent on the existence of minds/ideas/observations in the same way that the existence(different usage) of ideas/minds is dependent on matter. From the BEGINNING of my involvement in this thread, the position I have presented(in regards to materialism and such) that has been met with repeated opposition has been the above, which you now ask "Why is this distinction so important?". It was important enough to YOU to say that I am wrong(over and over again) so it was important enough to ME to examine your contentions/arguments and see if I was in fact wrong. quote: The legs themselves wouldn't exist if the person with them had never been born, so in a sense the legs' existence are also dependent on something. The only difference is that the thing they depend on is a prior event rather than a currently-existing object. You are missing the point though. Legs are matter. We have already agreed long ago that matter evolves in (probably) infinite regress of material cause and effect chain. The POINT of our discussion however is whether matter is dependent on non-matter(mind etc.). quote: If something is important, it's worth including in a philosophy. Your philosophy seems to exclude the subjective aspect of consciousness. For purposes of this discussion, this issue is not important to me at all. Of course there are subjective aspects of consciousness. It does not alter my posiiton in any way though so I see no point in going back and forth on this. quote: I agree that my own existence is not specifically necessary for things to have any meaning. However, if there were no conscious beings whatsoever, then nothing would have any meaning to anybody -- since a proposition can't have a truth value unless it's meaningful, this means that without conscious beings, there are no facts. (In fact, without conscious beings there isn't even the fact that there are no facts, because that would require assigning a truth value to the proposition "There are no facts", which can't be done in the absence of conscious beings.) THis is EXACTLY the point I have been arguing for...what 5 pages now?!? The point is that matter exists REGARDLESS of whether we are around to assign subjective meanings to it's existence or create means of communicating ideas to one another about the whole thing. The whole reason we are here today is because matter has existed for billions of years in this universe(at the very least) BEFORE any "minds" existed. Matter/energy => flora & fauna(more matter) => brained creatures(still MORE matter!) => "minds"(functions of material brains). quote: quote: There was a time in the early goings of our universe when no consciousness existed(brained creatures had not evolved yet) and still matter existed. Was this not important? Was it not a fact because you were not around to observe it? It is a fact, but only because we are observing it now. If we never came into existence so as to observe it, it would not be a fact. By existing, we have retrospectively assigned existence to everything that existed before us. Unless someone at some point forms the concept of existence, nothing can exist. See this is the point I don't think we can possibly resolve or come to agreement on since this sounds like complete nonsense to ME(unless you are being evasively ambiguous in how you define "fact"). Did matter exist before minds/observers or not? If you conclude that it DID then you are agreeing with me and quibbling over what YOU mean by "fact" and what I mean by the same word is a pointless endeavor. I am using "fact"(for lack of a better word) in the sense of something being literally true, regardless of subjective evaluatiuons and assigned meanings. I am NOT arguing about whether the word "fact" can have any meaning without abstract-thinking observers. Two different issues. quote: quote: quote: See, I'm not arguing that the rock doesn't exist in the absence of observation either. I'm saying that in the absence of observers, there's no way to assign any truth value at all to the rock's existence. And again I ask you, what is the point of this? I have never argued any aspect of "truth value" or whether such can be had without evaluators/observers. If the proposition "X exists" has no truth value, you can't correctly say that X exists. This is STILL irrelevant since we DO exist and "proposition X" DOES have truth value! Your hypothetical about whether it would be such if no one existed is pointless and irrelevant. We would not be having the discussion AT ALL if we did not exist! You might as well be going around screaming that 'there would be no math if there were nothing to quantify!' or 'There would be no "love" if there were no emotions!" I am not arguing what I would think or believe if I did not exist. That would be a stupid discussion for anyone to be having. quote: I don't even regard the above statement as being meaningful. To say "X exists even though X's existence does not, never has had, and never will have any consequences for conscious beings" seems like a contradiction to me. Let's reword your above so that it pertains to THIS discussion: "X exists even IF there were no beings capable of appreciating it's existence. If there were no such beings then there could be no APPRECIATION for or EVALUATION OF X's existence but this would not cause X to suddenly vanish into non-existence." THAT makes sense. Your above mischaracterization did NOT make sense adn you were right to say so(but WRONG to attribute such a nonsense position to ME). quote: It has everything to do with my positions. Essentially, I define "existing" as "being observable or having observable consequences", because it's the only definition I've ever seen that doesn't involve ontological handwaving. How do you define it? Speaking of ontological handwaving... :) So the tree that falls in the forest when no one is around, does not exist and never existed unless someone stumbles upon it adn even then it only popped into existence as a fallen tree/log? Exist v. 1)To have actual being: Be real. I define existence as above and having an appreciable(physical) effect on other existent things, regardless of whether anyone is around to apprecite it or to even use words like "exists". Example: A tree grows and it's roots cause the ground to crack. The tree exists. An imaginary dragon sets fire to an imaginary village but has no effect on any materially existent things in reality. The dragon does NOT exist. quote: Part of the problem seems to be that I simply don't accept that there's an important distinction between your ideas of dependent and independent existence. I agree. We each do not see the same importance in the same issues. It is just that everytime I point this out adn confess that I do not see any way we can resolve this since it is simple, subjective difference of opinions, you fire back with some challegne to my positions that is based on the idea that I SHOULD hold the same things "important" as you do. I don't. It matters not at ALL to the moon that we exist or not to assign "meanings" to anything. The moon will go on being, even after we are extinct. I find THAT important. I could care less about the (to me completely nonsensical)pontification of whether "meanings" could be had if there were no originators of "meanings" because those who "observe" and "assign meanings" would not exist if not for matter(they themselves being physical/material). It may be a reductionist argument but all roads lead back to matter. quote: *But only* because we eventually existed. If we never came to exist, we couldn't assign existence to anything else.** So? The point being that the universe still existed and will exist whether we are around to say so or not. Of course we could not "assign" ANYTHING to ANYYTHING ELSE if we are not around!? Does this even need to be said?!? Does it change anything? quote: The very concept of an axiom is only meaningful in a formal system. If people really held axioms in their minds as a whole, they'd never be able to change them -- people can and do change the axiomatic systems they use for reasoning, which shows that the axioms of their reasoning weren't the axioms of their minds. I'd argue that the mind as a whole can't have axioms, because minds aren't formal systems. Ack...we are drifting again. Back to the point/topic at hand... Certain "assumptions" are completely necessary and there is no way to escape them. Regardless of how "formal" you are in your reasoning ability, you have two options basically: 1)Wheel-spinning solipsism in which you can do naught but sit around asking circular questions in an infinite cycle of "What is this?" and "I cannot say that!"(really this involves making a useless, but necessary assumption as well). or 2)At the very root/base of your entire thinking process/line of reasoning you have an assumption. quote: [quote] quote: So would you regard a discovery found through a hypothesis based on a lucky guess but proven by going through the rest of the scientific method as being a scientific discovery? quote: You asked two seperate questions there. If you regard the scientific method as a single, unified conceptual object, they're one question, because if one fails to follow one part of a method one has failed to follow the method as a whole. If you don't regard the scientific method as a single concept, you shouldn't call it a method. You are not making sense here and have somehow completely missed the point. The scientific method need not include every action one engages in from sun-up to sun-down. If I develope an energy alternative that is safer than atomic energy, I will use the scientific method to do so. If I was imspired by watching Godzilla(not the 1999 remake) then that is all well and good but watching Godzilla and getting inspired is not necessarilly part of the scientific method. Two seperate issues. By YOUR argument, everyone is doing science at all times of day if what they are doing could conceivably inspire someone to practice science. That is just ridiculous from my perspective. quote: Do you actually hold a unified concept of a "scientific discovery" at all? Now what the HELL does that MEAN?!? It was a simple point that things outside of the actual practice of science need not be considered science themselves. Why invoke this unessary terminology and inane questioning? Baseball is a particular sport with set rules. Herb has a dream as a child of being a star pitcher and this imspires him to practice throwing the ball. Everything he did prior to and aside from grabbing a mit and joing the game of baseball was NOT part of the actual act of playing baseball. Maybe important to the appreciation of the game. May be inspiring. But the game of baseball does not award points for recalling dreams you had. Now If someone were to state the above, would you feel inclined to ask them about whether they held "unified concept of baseballular ingenuity?" or somesuch? Of course not. It is a simple point to understand adn dopes not require dragging fromal logic, quantum mechanics or any otehr irrelevant junk into the discussion. quote: It seems that you don't. I simply assumed that the "scientific method" you described was a system for evaluating where a discovery was scientifically sound, and that it would be declared so if and only if the discovery occurred through the application of the scientific method as a whole -- otherwise, it's not a method but merely a set of unrelated actions, and then there's no way to evaluate whether a discovery is scientifically sound and can be relied on for future work. Let's try this again(note: it would help the discussion to NOT get off track with unecessary terminology and inane questions): First of all, yes, the scientific method is a method(you will not go far in science doubting this I am afraid). No, to be such, it need NOT include things outside of the practice of science("Hmmm...pie tastes good! I like PIE!" is not part of the scientific method, however important it is to YOU personally in inspiring you to engage in science). I do not have a unified conceptual object of 'pietastesgoodism' btw so please don't ask. quote: It's becoming increasingly clear that I somehow misinterpreted the purpose of your laundry list. I assumed that, in your view, one could simply assess whether a discovery was scientific by checking: Was the line of research based initially on an observation? Was a hypothesis formed? etc. Apparently you're not arguing that this is the case, in which case I question the utility of your scientific method for anything at all. No guy and this is another strawman(and a half-assed one you have constructed). Where we disagree seems to be that YOU consider imaginings as the same as "observation" and I do not. Someone imagining a dragon is not observing* a dragon, therefore dragonology is NOT science. You try and create a false dichotmoy that I must either hold your definitions and place the same degrees of importance on issues as you do...OR I am arguing that there is no scientific method. quote: quote: I probably did not include a few things. I believe I DID include an "etc." did I not? In any case you keep harping on my "laundry list" as if it were meant to be the be all and end all conclusive definition of scietific methodlogy or something. It certainly isn't a conclusive or adequate definition of scientific methodology, and that's what I've been trying to show. Well you have been wasting our timne then since I said from teh beginning that it was not adn also that this is not important to the discussion at hand. If you want to start a new thread called "I challenge anyone hear to comprehensively define the Scientific method!" then knock yourself out! I may even participate in said thread. But it is off-topic in a way that is completely diversionary here. quote: You argued that the scientific method is something that's clearly defined and widely known, and you argued as if you yourself held a clear definition of what it was. It seems as if at least the latter is not the case. Chuckle. I said I was not going to try and reproduce any word-for-word descriptions here because, not having the books I would need handy ATM, I was bound to screw up something, even if relatively incosequential and this would lead to more semantic nonsense. I also assumed this was not necessary since you claimed to be pursuing a career in science. I assumed you would already be familiar with scientific methodology. Are you pursuing a career in science or are you seeking to attack science to legitimise something else like parapsychology or therapeutic touch or somesuch? I only ask because I have not met any scientists who argue AGAINST scientific method!? But just for **s and grins, i will play your baby game and give you an off the cuff and oversimplified description of the scientific method just to see what you do with it: 1)Observation. 2)Hypothesis. 3)testing. 4)Falsification. 5)Theory(include predictive aspects and decriptive mechanisms). 6)More testing & falsififcation attempts. 7)Peer review. 8)Revisiting/re-examining the phenomenom for which the theory is proposed to explain as well as the theory itself. 9)Revision according to new data. Now, whatever minor technical or ordering mistakes in the above, one can still EASILY distinguihs science from non-science. Creationism does not get beyond the "hypothesis" stage so is not science. "Psychic powers" are not a scientific theory since they lack a mechanism as well as grounds for falsification. quote: [b] quote: Walk v. (1)To move or cause to move on foot at a pace slower than a run. Think v. (1)To have or formulate in the mind.(2A) To Ponder. (2B) To Reason. Mind n. (1)The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested esp. in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. Any questions? Good. You'll notice that the definition of "thought" there effectively includes the concept of consciousness as well as the brain. Now we're getting somewhere. Was there some point when the definition did NOT include such? What is your point?? quote: [qb]It's my opinion that the scope of human knowledge is profoundly incomplete without a philosophy of thought that extends considerably further than dictionary definitions.[/b] An opinion we share...but again, irrelvant to this discussion. You requested these definitions and seemed to have problems understanding mine, so I grabbed the above which made my case just as eloquently(if not more so). Are the above definitions lacking or somehow insufficient to you as well? Perhaps if you laid out some criteria by which you would accept defintions I gave you, as per your requests? quote: So we need a different psychological tool for each job (science for assessing truth values, something else for describing subjective experiences)? ??? I don't know or care how you might want to assess subjective experiences but yes, science is for evaluating the physically manifest, existential nature of reality. We cannot use "beauty" or "art" or "Why do I like pie so much?" to tell us, objectively whether volcanoes exist or whether they are manifestations of angry gods. quote: That's unappealing to me. As are your dualist and other non-materialist ideas are to ME. Like I said long ago...not something we are likely to resolve beyond agreeing to disagree. quote: My goal has always been to hold a unified philosophy that's useful for any purpose I might want to turn it to.** Good luck with that! quote: How can your definition of thinking tell us all that's worth knowing about thinking when it doesn't even include the ability (which is surely an aspect of thinking) to assess things as being worth knowing? ??? You are not making sense here. Are you claiming there is an objective measure of what is "worth knowing" and furthermore that YOU are the arbitrator of such? ANd why do you draw the above conclusion about how I define thinking? It does not follow from what i have posted on the matter. Assigning subjective evaluations to things is most certainly part of thinking adn I have consistently argued this. Another strawman. [ Saturday, February 05, 2005 10:55: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Saturday, February 5 2005 10:59 Profile #270 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: quote: Originally written by Kelandon: SkeleTony, that was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. You can't handle the general case. Why don't you just admit that the concept of god is not inherently self-contradictory? I will take this as a concession then. If you cannot answer my points/arguments then be a bigger man/woman(I do not know your gender) and say so but to withdraw shouting "cop out" and the like is chiken-s#!t. He made a perfectly reasonable point, which is that you failed to prove the general case. Either you have to individually disprove the possibility of the existence of every deity in the Hindu, Greek, Sumerian, Norse, etc. pantheons, or you have to provide some general disproof of the possibility of a concept which encompasses every god in every one of those pantheons. Done. If you have some contention with my reasoning/arguments then feel free but don't just write it off as a "cop out" and say that I have not without explaining why my arguments are insufficient. I do not have to examine every car in existence to say that there are no street legal automobiles made entirely of gelatin. I do not have to (dis)prove, individually, every auto manufactured as being made of other than gelatin. I only have to show that by the definitions involved and understadnings of the mechanical processes, such things are impossible. I did not fail to prove the general case. it is just that you fail to understand my proof. I do not say that the sun does not exist. The sun is not a "god" to me. I do not say that "Gyb4slagrortch" does or does not exist. It is an undefined nonsense word so does not count as a God. I DO say that transcendent "Gods" do not exist for reasons I have already outlined. [ Saturday, February 05, 2005 11:04: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, February 5 2005 14:13 Profile Homepage #271 "Not completely known" is not the same as "meaningless." You did a reasonable job of showing why the sort of god that I had defined had not been described in its entirety, but that's far from saying that such a thing is logically contradictory or meaningless. More specifically, the word "Gyb4slagrortch" is not defined and therefore could mean anything. The word "god" is defined somewhat generally, and could only mean specific things. You could point at anything and claim that it was a Gyb4slagrortch, but you couldn't point at anything and claim that it was a god unless it had certain properties. That's not meaningless; that's just not perfectly known. [ Saturday, February 05, 2005 14:40: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, February 5 2005 16:44 Profile Homepage #272 quote: The point is that matter exists REGARDLESS of whether we are around to assign subjective meanings to it's existence or create means of communicating ideas to one another about the whole thing. See, this is the sentence that just doesn't mean anything to me. What does it mean to say that something exists regardless of whether we are around? quote: See this is the point I don't think we can possibly resolve or come to agreement on since this sounds like complete nonsense to ME(unless you are being evasively ambiguous in how you define "fact"). Did matter exist before minds/observers or not? If you conclude that it DID then you are agreeing with me and quibbling over what YOU mean by "fact" and what I mean by the same word is a pointless endeavor. Matter did exist before minds, but couldn't have existed in the absence of minds. Part of the problem here is that my argument relies on the fact that in my view, existence requires a non-causal, retrospective assignation of existence by a conscious being, which I don't think your philosophy has any concept analogous to. To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, to me, the statement "The planet Earth existed 1 billion years ago" is true now, but the statement "The planet Earth exists now" was NOT true 1 billion years ago. quote: I am using "fact"(for lack of a better word) in the sense of something being literally true, regardless of subjective evaluatiuons and assigned meanings. I am NOT arguing about whether the word "fact" can have any meaning without abstract-thinking observers. Two different issues. I don't see them as different issues. It can't be true to say that facts exist unless someone holds a definition of what a fact is. quote: quote: It has everything to do with my positions. Essentially, I define "existing" as "being observable or having observable consequences", because it's the only definition I've ever seen that doesn't involve ontological handwaving. How do you define it? Speaking of ontological handwaving... :) So the tree that falls in the forest when no one is around, does not exist and never existed unless someone stumbles upon it adn even then it only popped into existence as a fallen tree/log? The tree does not "pop into existence". It is assigned pre-existence as a living tree at the same time that it is assigned present existence as a fallen tree. It is true to say "the tree was at location X at time Y" once you have found the tree, but that is not the same as saying that the proposition "the tree was at location X at time Y" was true while the tree was growing at that location -- the proposition couldn't have been true, because the proposition itself can't exist until it's proposed (although since conscious beings did, presumably, exist while the tree was growing, if one of us HAD thought, at time Y, to say "there is a tree growing at location X", the proposition would have turned out to be true if someone at a future point in time found the tree (fallen or otherwise). quote: Exist v. 1)To have actual being: Be real. Defining something with near-synonyms isn't very helpful. quote: I define existence as above and having an appreciable(physical) effect on other existent things, regardless of whether anyone is around to apprecite it or to even use words like "exists". See, I don't think a physical effect alone is an appreciable effect. Nothing is appreciable without an appreciator. quote: I agree. We each do not see the same importance in the same issues. It is just that everytime I point this out adn confess that I do not see any way we can resolve this since it is simple, subjective difference of opinions, you fire back with some challegne to my positions that is based on the idea that I SHOULD hold the same things "important" as you do. Don't we all think everyone should hold the same things important as we do? Look at the arguments people start over things as minor as not liking the same music. I'm not trying or expecting to convince you of anything anyway (and I hope you're not either); I'm just arguing for fun and for practice. quote: The moon will go on being, even after we are extinct. I find THAT important. Why? Why is something important to you when you won't be around to see it? quote: Certain "assumptions" are completely necessary and there is no way to escape them. Regardless of how "formal" you are in your reasoning ability, you have two options basically: 1)Wheel-spinning solipsism in which you can do naught but sit around asking circular questions in an infinite cycle of "What is this?" and "I cannot say that!"(really this involves making a useless, but necessary assumption as well). or 2)At the very root/base of your entire thinking process/line of reasoning you have an assumption. The importance of my point about the mind not being a formal system is that these assumptions are NOT axioms in the strict sense, and are therefore not immune to change or challenge. People do make assumptions in order to get things done, but for most people this is done very much as an ad hoc process. Most people (perhaps even all people) end up holding a very large set of assumptions that contains some inconsistencies and would fall apart if they spent too much time analysing it. quote: By YOUR argument, everyone is doing science at all times of day if what they are doing could conceivably inspire someone to practice science. That is just ridiculous from my perspective. That's not my argument. In fact, I was arguing the opposite; that whatever initially inspires someone to pursue a line of scientific thought, that inspiration should be considered to be outside the scientific method -- and therefore *that "Observation" did not belong at the start* of that list, because it is not a discrete step in the scientific method. You seem to agree with the first point, but disagree with my argument that follows from it. quote: Are you pursuing a career in science or are you seeking to attack science to legitimise something else like parapsychology or therapeutic touch or somesuch? I only ask because I have not met any scientists who argue AGAINST scientific method!? I assure you I have every intention of pursuing a career in mainstream science. quote: But just for *s and grins, i will play your baby game and give you an off the cuff and oversimplified description of the scientific method just to see what you do with it: 1)Observation. 2)Hypothesis. 3)testing. 4)Falsification. 5)Theory(include predictive aspects and decriptive mechanisms). 6)More testing & falsififcation attempts. 7)Peer review. 8)Revisiting/re-examining the phenomenom for which the theory is proposed to explain as well as the theory itself. 9)Revision according to new data. Before I tackle this, I'm going to ask one simple question: What do you believe is the purpose* of having a scientific method? quote: quote: You'll notice that the definition of "thought" there effectively includes the concept of consciousness as well as the brain. Now we're getting somewhere. Was there some point when the definition did NOT include such? What is your point?? There was some point when YOUR definition did not include such. My point is that you said, and I do believe these were your exact words, "thought is defined as brain activity", and that this is an incomplete definition precisely BECAUSE it does not mention consciousness. quote: An opinion we share...but again, irrelvant to this discussion. You requested these definitions and seemed to have problems understanding mine, so I grabbed the above which made my case just as eloquently(if not more so). Shifting ground. I don't see how "walking is defined as legged activity" and "thought is defined as brain activity" imply movement and consciousness respectively. If you're going to define something, define it completely. quote: ANd why do you draw the above conclusion about how I define thinking? It does not follow from what i have posted on the matter. I hope you're getting the point by now that your little "thought is defined as brain activity" throwaway line, as if all we needed to know about thought was that it was an activity of the brain, kinda got under my skin. quote: Assigning subjective evaluations to things is most certainly part of thinking adn I have consistently argued this. Not when you said "thought is defined as brain activity", you didn't. That was the first explicit definition you gave of thought on this thread, and for a long time it was the only definition of yours that I had to work with. I had no reason to believe that was not the definition of thought that you held. You're the one who sets up your own arguments as straw men, not me. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Creator BoE Posse Member # 112	written Saturday, February 5 2005 17:01 Profile #273 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: [QUOTE]To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, to me, the statement "The planet Earth existed 1 billion years ago" is true now, but the statement "The planet Earth exists now" was NOT true 1 billion years ago. That's whacked out, man. Do you seriously believe that, or do you simply adopt that viewpoint for the heck of it? I can see that being fun, because hey, it's impossible to disprove. That kind of concept seems quite Terry Pratchett-ish to me. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 \| Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, February 5 2005 17:06 Profile Homepage #274 quote: Originally written by The Creator: quote: Originally written by Thuryl: To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, to me, the statement "The planet Earth existed 1 billion years ago" is true now, but the statement "The planet Earth exists now" was NOT true 1 billion years ago. That's whacked out, man. Do you seriously believe that, or do you simply adopt that viewpoint for the heck of it? I can see that being fun, because hey, it's impossible to disprove. That kind of concept seems quite Terry Pratchett-ish to me. I seriously believe it, at least on a philosophical level (although my preferred philosophical system changes often enough that that may not mean much). Mind you, I'm also not saying it would have been false to say Earth existed at that time. What I'm saying is that it isn't meaningful to say that a proposition is true or false until someone's actually proposed it. Incidentally, this viewpoint does have practical advantages, such as getting around the paradox of probability. With classical notions of truth, something is either true or false, so it's never really sensible to say that there's a 50% chance of something being true; the truth is that there's either a 100% chance of it being true (because it IS true), or a 100% chance of it being false (because it IS false), but you just don't know which. Under my system, on the other hand, you can't say something is true or false until you've proven it one way or the other, which makes it meaningful to talk about probability. [ Saturday, February 05, 2005 17:12: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00