And no evidence to the contrary. It's not really an area in which you debate evidence. If you fall upon your blade here (Occam's Razor interestingly enough) you also have to realize the limits of the tool, and that you're once again forced into the pragmatic.
The "mind" is merely the result of extremely complex chemical reactions which provide a way for the universe to observe itself. Again, you fail to understand basic logic. I don't have to provide evidence to the contrary. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And no evidence to the contrary. It's not really an area in which you debate evidence. If you fall upon your blade here (Occam's Razor interestingly enough) you also have to realize the limits of the tool, and that you're once again forced into the pragmatic.
The "mind" is merely the result of extremely complex chemical reactions which provide a way for the universe to observe itself. Again, you fail to understand basic logic. I don't have to provide evidence to the contrary. Lack of evidence is evidence of non-existence.
No, you are the one failing here. This is formal logic at its simplest. Take the empty set. Assuming A, then ~A is false. But A is an assumption. That of course doesn't deal with the existential problems, but it's what we generally think of as logic.
Earlier this evening I had a 40 minute discussion with a friend on Skype about the idea of Philosophical Zombies, and nothing we could come up could explain why the concept holds any weight with anyone.
Earlier this evening I had a 40 minute discussion with a friend on Skype about the idea of Philosophical Zombies, and nothing we could come up could explain why the concept holds any weight with anyone.
That is an interesting coincidence. It's slightly more relevant to the discussion in the meta forum thread brought on by Scott. I just happened upon the terms quickly glancing at wikipedia to make sure I was using the right language.
I think this sentence summarizes why it's not a practically useful term:
"Artificial intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky sees the argument as circular. The proposition of the possibility of something physically identical to a human but without subjective experience assumes that the physical characteristics of humans are not what produces those experiences, which is exactly what the argument was claiming to prove."
There is evidence to the contrary - the many, many observations we have made connecting the relations between various types of thought, and areas of / processes within the brain.
Well, to put it in easier to digest terms, is there a difference between a "real" human and a machine we construct that, while wholly deterministic, cannot be differentiated by any person in behavior from a "real" person?
You could also try buying one off of some freshman at your school.
lol, wat, RISD? o.O (Anyway, I am no longer student there.) seriously speaking, however, I think something like talkOrigins or 3rd chimp, which are directly geared towards my interest, is going to be more fruitful than wading through a biology textbook.
Depends on what you mean by "fruitful." talkOrigins is a good start, but "evolution" is such a sweeping, fundamental concept in biology that it's not practical to address it as a lone topic. Doesn't stop people from trying.
Essentially, this is a creationist screed that lays out some of their "arguments" against certain components of evolution. You can look at their criteria and figure out how they think. Use that information to attack their evaluations with better research.
By the way, that paper was the number 2 result in a Google search for "biology textbook reviews." We're basically fucked.
Well, to put it in easier to digest terms, is there a difference between a "real" human and a machine we construct that, while wholly deterministic, cannot be differentiated by any person in behavior from a "real" person?
But observations themselves are a part of the mind-body problem. That's why this evidence of other things can't be accounted for. Exactly like the quote above from the p-zombie discussion, the argument is circular. Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
We can also measure and observe indirectly. That are many things we can't directly observe, but we can measure and predict the effects of their interactions in the universe in a reliable manner.
But observations themselves are a part of the mind-body problem. That's why this evidence of other things can't be accounted for. Exactly like the quote above from the p-zombie discussion, the argument is circular.
Not fully understanding the mechanism behind our experience of observations does not invalidate the observations themselves.
Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
That's a basic epistemological problem and is one you could pose to absolutely any question at all. In that sense, you don't "know" anything, and the word loses all meaning, as does this discussion.
Did you ever take a formal logic philosophy course? I did that within my minor. There were a couple terms the professor may have used awkwardly, but basically here's how I remember it.
The empty set is a set with no assumptions.
Assuming A is true, then the statement ~A would always be false.
My point was that by assuming A to be true, you are still making an assumption, and should be recognized as such.
Empty set notation was essentially equivalent to formal proofs in mathematics. It was a step past mathematical logic (in philosophy) in the coursework. It reduces logic to just rules that can be discerned from no assumptions.
Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
That's a basic epistemological problem and is one you could pose to absolutely any question at all. In that sense, you don't "know" anything, and the word loses all meaning, as does this discussion.
Exactly. :P
So you're following me then. And yet you want to say that "Theism is false." That's where we conflict. If we were to judge things based on the merit of knowing truth, we would first need to know that this problem exists, and accept it into our understanding of things.
And tieing that into the above thing, it's like empty set philosophical notation. We can create proofs based on our assumptions, but we still know them to be assumptions. It's always important to recognize that part of the problem.
By the way, that paper was the number 2 result in a Google search for "biology textbook reviews." We're basically fucked.
I did my first DNA gel at a Discovery Institute day camp.
? An electrophoresis gel? What was the lesson there?
I honestly can not remember. I think i was too distracted by science to pay much attention to propaganda.
I don't know much about the day camps they'd put on, but I'm willing to be that the Discovery Institute's presentation of science is questionable at best.
My statement with regards to the mind-body problem is not some sort of axiomatic assumption.
You'll have to spell it out for me then. I'm not sure how you're able to get that far without falling into "the real is rational and the rational is real."
It also appears that I was somewhat right in that my classes used some terms in less common ways. At least according to the googles. I also remember a great deal of confusion about universalism/particularism as opposed to generalism/particularism.
Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
That's a basic epistemological problem and is one you could pose to absolutely any question at all. In that sense, you don't "know" anything, and the word loses all meaning, as does this discussion.
Exactly. :P
So you're following me then. And yet you want to say that "Theism is false." That's where we conflict. If we were to judge things based on the merit of knowing truth, we would first need to know that this problem exists, and accept it into our understanding of things.
And tieing that into the above thing, it's like empty set philosophical notation. We can create proofs based on our assumptions, but we still know them to be assumptions. It's always important to recognize that part of the problem.
So, why don't you make this same argument towards someone making any truth claim at all? Why don't you argue this when someone says that 1+1=2, or that the Earth is curved?
Most of the time we approach the issue of truth pragmatically, because we don't really have a full understanding of the underlying philosophy. The "assumptions" needed to establish atheism are no different from the assumptions you make for any other questions about reality.
Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
That's a basic epistemological problem and is one you could pose to absolutely any question at all. In that sense, you don't "know" anything, and the word loses all meaning, as does this discussion.
Exactly. :P
So you're following me then. And yet you want to say that "Theism is false." That's where we conflict. If we were to judge things based on the merit of knowing truth, we would first need to know that this problem exists, and accept it into our understanding of things.
And tieing that into the above thing, it's like empty set philosophical notation. We can create proofs based on our assumptions, but we still know them to be assumptions. It's always important to recognize that part of the problem.
So, why don't you make this same argument towards someone making any truth claim at all? Why don't you argue this when someone says that 1+1=2, or that the Earth is curved?
Most of the time we approach the issue of truth pragmatically, because we don't really have a full understanding of the underlying philosophy. The "assumptions" needed to establish atheism are no different from the assumptions you make for any other questions about reality.
You are the one that proposed a system in which we subscribe to knowledge as a thing with inherent value. All of this, both pragmatically and philosophically, would flow from that particular system. If knowledge were the thing of value, we would need to "know the relative value of what we know about our observations."
My argument simply followed from that.
Stating that "Theism is false" as a statement of knowledge is inherently problematic, for exactly the reasons I've illustrated. If we're looking at a universe in which we have said that knowledge is itself valuable, then that's critical to that statement.
You've lost track of the premises I think, because I'm not arguing pragmatic value vs. philosophical. I'm arguing what counts as knowledge/the truth value of a statement. Pragmatics usually wins the value debate, but your statements were not pragmatic ones but that "theism is false" as a truth statement, as potential knowledge. On that, it is very easy to see the incredible uncertainty.
Our evidence that what is observable is real is... because we observe it.
That's a basic epistemological problem and is one you could pose to absolutely any question at all. In that sense, you don't "know" anything, and the word loses all meaning, as does this discussion.
Exactly. :P
So you're following me then. And yet you want to say that "Theism is false." That's where we conflict. If we were to judge things based on the merit of knowing truth, we would first need to know that this problem exists, and accept it into our understanding of things.
And tieing that into the above thing, it's like empty set philosophical notation. We can create proofs based on our assumptions, but we still know them to be assumptions. It's always important to recognize that part of the problem.
So, why don't you make this same argument towards someone making any truth claim at all? Why don't you argue this when someone says that 1+1=2, or that the Earth is curved?
Most of the time we approach the issue of truth pragmatically, because we don't really have a full understanding of the underlying philosophy. The "assumptions" needed to establish atheism are no different from the assumptions you make for any other questions about reality.
THIS times a million.
Seconded.
Most people fall back on this level of argument because it can inherently disprove any "disproof" and attack any argument. But, by their very using of this strategy selectively, they are acknowledging a bias and invalidating their own argument.
If your only attack is one derived solely from the existential inability to know anything, then you have attacked everything, and thus nothing.
You guys are all not actually following the conversation...
I'm not arguing what's best. Or whether it's useful or not. But that the statement "Theism is false" is not supported. If you want to argue pragmatics, utilitarianism, or any particular system and why theism is at a disadvantage or wrong: I am right there with you.
The key is exact language, which Rym actually does use some of the time.
Comments
I think this sentence summarizes why it's not a practically useful term:
"Artificial intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky sees the argument as circular. The proposition of the possibility of something physically identical to a human but without subjective experience assumes that the physical characteristics of humans are not what produces those experiences, which is exactly what the argument was claiming to prove."
Here's an interesting angle to try. This is a paper published by the Discovery Institute in 2011, wherein they evaluate 22 textbooks by their presentation of certain "icons" of evolution.
Essentially, this is a creationist screed that lays out some of their "arguments" against certain components of evolution. You can look at their criteria and figure out how they think. Use that information to attack their evaluations with better research.
By the way, that paper was the number 2 result in a Google search for "biology textbook reviews." We're basically fucked.
The empty set is a set with no assumptions.
Assuming A is true, then the statement ~A would always be false.
My point was that by assuming A to be true, you are still making an assumption, and should be recognized as such.
Empty set notation was essentially equivalent to formal proofs in mathematics. It was a step past mathematical logic (in philosophy) in the coursework. It reduces logic to just rules that can be discerned from no assumptions.
So you're following me then. And yet you want to say that "Theism is false." That's where we conflict. If we were to judge things based on the merit of knowing truth, we would first need to know that this problem exists, and accept it into our understanding of things.
And tieing that into the above thing, it's like empty set philosophical notation. We can create proofs based on our assumptions, but we still know them to be assumptions. It's always important to recognize that part of the problem.
It also appears that I was somewhat right in that my classes used some terms in less common ways. At least according to the googles. I also remember a great deal of confusion about universalism/particularism as opposed to generalism/particularism.
Most of the time we approach the issue of truth pragmatically, because we don't really have a full understanding of the underlying philosophy. The "assumptions" needed to establish atheism are no different from the assumptions you make for any other questions about reality.
My argument simply followed from that.
Stating that "Theism is false" as a statement of knowledge is inherently problematic, for exactly the reasons I've illustrated. If we're looking at a universe in which we have said that knowledge is itself valuable, then that's critical to that statement.
You've lost track of the premises I think, because I'm not arguing pragmatic value vs. philosophical. I'm arguing what counts as knowledge/the truth value of a statement. Pragmatics usually wins the value debate, but your statements were not pragmatic ones but that "theism is false" as a truth statement, as potential knowledge. On that, it is very easy to see the incredible uncertainty.
Most people fall back on this level of argument because it can inherently disprove any "disproof" and attack any argument. But, by their very using of this strategy selectively, they are acknowledging a bias and invalidating their own argument.
If your only attack is one derived solely from the existential inability to know anything, then you have attacked everything, and thus nothing.
I'm not arguing what's best. Or whether it's useful or not. But that the statement "Theism is false" is not supported. If you want to argue pragmatics, utilitarianism, or any particular system and why theism is at a disadvantage or wrong: I am right there with you.
The key is exact language, which Rym actually does use some of the time.