Judgment Day [Archive] - Page 2

A.Saturnus

12-17-2003, 22:59

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 17 2003,10:23)]
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 17 2003,09:05)]
Quote[/b] ]I wish everyone a Happy Holidays

I'm sure there is a hidden agenda buried in this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif
Sure is, they abducted Saturnus and are now probing the market.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif
Nope, I´m still here and ready to re-enter the fray...

Quote[/b] ]Yes, the methodology might be related, but the exactness is missing as well as the thoroughness of the study field. You are admitting there are parts of the human mind such as thought that you cannot study, but your field of study involves all of the human mind, or doesn't it? If not, then of course you are correct and I don't have any critique to make. But if that is so, then there might be relations between that which you cannot study and the things you can, thoughts, or subconscious processes might play a role in the examples you gave, so there will be a much bigger margin of error in your findings than in my example. There was a theory quarks exist, and devices are built to study and confirm it. What is found is true wihin the limits defined from the get go. That is sufficient for a physicist. One could say they found what they wanted to.

You know the mind exists, and accept it as that without contemplating the implications of this. But there is the whole sum of consciousness, reality and perception in its wake, all those have to be taken into account implicitly when one is to conduct studies of processes that close to their origins. I am not sure the results can be within an acceptable degree of exactness that would suffice for me to call them scientific, an exact science, or a natural science. It incorporates a part of all these, but is not congruent with them.
And so I still don't think you can only analyse effects of the mind (for instance in the examples you gave) on our fourdimensional reality without adding the caveat that its origin cannot be defined conclusively as belonging to that same space in its entireness. This is a matter of definition I admit, but this strict ductus is required in a scientific approach.

True, the thoughts we don´t control can influence the outcome. Just like the unknown movements in a gas or the properties of all cells in an organism. It levels out in the end (more or less). This makes the margin of error higher than in physics, no doubt. But that can be overcome with statistical means.
Psychology is far away from being an exact science, but so are others. It is still a science.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, this is a good example. But it is not really focussing on the thought process, as an independent thing that unaffected in itself, but can receive input and output channeled by the brain. We could say that by damage of this specific area one input line to the mind from the physical world is disrupted, the conscious part of the mind doesn't get the information about what it sees, but another channel(s) is still open (or maybe the same one, as from your example it isn't clear if that part is damaged or completely destroyed), so an image is sent that gets too distorted for the conscious mind to analyse, or maybe doesn't reach it at all, but the feed to the purely reactionary, subconscious level of the mind is not affected. Of course I would need to know more, like is the person moving normally although claiming to be blind, do they have normal reactions/reflexes? You say the report is handled by other brain regions, so what does this region actually do that you have found out? How far can you analyse it with getting proper feedback from the outsider as well as the one you conduct the study on? It is tricky, but it can be explained by my theory as well.
Yes, I treat the theories equal and make a choice in uncertainty, I don't go by probability here until the probability for my theory stands at exactly 0%. This is due to the unexactness of the whole issue.
And once again, your PC analogy isn't matching, but illustrating the problem at least. I would not say that such a claim is silly, as it certainly isn't disprovable so it has to be given some precious probability. The data processing matrix that a specific program creates could as well resonate outside of the 4dimensional space that we know about, and maybe there is a dimension where probabilities are weighed, knowledge and data processed and results determined, and if one switches that PC off, the mark that this programme created there could still exist and work until it gets connected to our PC again and be given new input. It sounds strange, but not silly.
However, my take is that it is most reasonable to accept whatever theory suits you best and then use your PC without wasting further thought on it until this issue becomes a problem or you can't sleep over it. Until then, I will enjoy my fine MTW campaign, knowing it will wait for me in transcedent RAM or on my HD until I invoke it again.

No findings about the brain prove that the mind must be attached to the matter. And no finding ever will, because you could always make the same claim. That the matter only is relay, but not the cause of the mind. I can also claim gravity is caused by little pixies with magic wands and immunize my claim against any test you could present. That´s just the difference between science and belief. If a certain belief is silly is of course open to everyone´s own judgement, but there´s no doubt that the sciencetific explanation is more rational.

Quote[/b] ]They don't exist at this moment, so they are outside of scientific approach.

They may be out of the current reach of science, but they aren´t outside the field that science studies.

Quote[/b] ]That is a dogmatic approach, not a philosophic one. First, there is no must, as we can doubt everything. You are right however, in that one of us or we could both be wrong but maybe we can both be partially right... Who knows?
Relativism isn't as dangerous as dogmatism. A dogma makes discourses impossible, relativism makes them interesting and tends to bring the parties involved to a least common ground. It creates a basic consens while allowing room for interpretation and different opinions and that is never bad.

With must I mean necessity. It can of course be that we both are partly right. I would say that´s even likely, but it´s only possible if we´re not taking about a singular term. If I say 'X' and you say 'not-X', one of must be wrong by necessity. Logic requires it. Relativism is actually leaving the only common ground we have, because it undermines the principle of argumentation that only rational arguments are allowed. Without this principle the discours becomes pointless.

A.Saturnus

12-17-2003, 23:48

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 15 2003,19:59)]Epicurus arguing that Deity takes no interest in human affairs is not unlike Aristotle's view. Neither was an atheist.
Maybe we should ask him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]
( I don't know what this thing is, but somehow think it applies).

Contingent being can be explained through an appeal to necessary Being. The logic is correct. Refusing to believe there is any necessary Being does not influence the validity of the statement. A base materialism cannot answer the question of causality without an appeal beyond itself.

Pindar, maybe we simply don´t understand each other. I said that whatever entity´s existence is claimed, it can be questioned for it´s cause. You say that the Deity is necessary by definition. By it´s own definition Everything I can say to that is in my understanding, a definition cannot contain necessity. Defining something in a way so that it can´t be questioned for it´s cause is like defining a triangle without corners or a class with only true subclass. And I would say that surely influences the validity of the statement.
Every necessity must be derived from something outside the supposed-to-be-necessary concept. Necessity by definition is like pulling yourself out of the swamp by your hair.

Quote[/b] ]This excluded middle is incorrect. Science can only speak to material causality. Material casuality is not the only kind of cause.

Why should science not be able to speak of other kinds of causes? Aristotle´s four causes are a relative unnecessary concept anyway. 'Causality' refers to the assumption that in closed system, one state of the system will be followed by a certain other state. 'X being the cause of Y' means that Y must inevitably follow X. We assume causality when we experience contigence. Causality is the assumed principle along which we order our experiences. Causality is what connects phenomenons to a world. Something that is a cause has an effect on the phenomenons we experience and is therefore part of this network of causality we call world. It may not be experiencable itself, but it can be studied by the effects it has on thing that are experiencable. Doing this studying methodically is science.

Quote[/b] ]Induction is not the only method whereby truth claims are made.

Actually, induction is not a method whereby truth claims can be maid. That´s what the whole induction-problem is about. Only deduction can make truth claims. As Hume said: all certainty arises from the comparison of ideas.

Quote[/b] ]A circular argument is the correct English.

You can also say begging the question or petitio principii.

Quote[/b] ]although all our knowledge begins with experience, its does not follow that it arises from experience.

Part of the Copernican revolution in philosophy that Kant usered in was the recognition that the subject informs sensation through various conceptual schemata.

Kant went a bit to far there. However, certain concepts are built in into our perceptual system. But this is of course a reason to think that these concepts are manifestly present in the world.

Quote[/b] ]The Parmenidian position is not an analysis of 'a being', but Being itself.

Being is just the sum of all beings, therefore an analyses of being includes all beings and you are wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

You know, I must always have the last word http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

LittleGrizzly

12-17-2003, 23:49

ok ive just read through all this in one go i could understand most of it the main part that tripped me up were some of the words but anyway personally im an atheist but thought of this after i read it

could it be argued that god does have an effect as in the effect he has through people who believe in him ?

A.Saturnus

12-17-2003, 23:51

Quote[/b] ]could it be argued that god does have an effect as in the effect he has through people who believe in him ?

Yes, in the same way this guy --> http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif has an effect on people too.

LittleGrizzly

12-17-2003, 23:58

you've got a good point there.... ahh well back to trying to understand the arguments before i make my next attempt...

Brutal DLX

12-18-2003, 10:12

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 17 2003,21:59)]
Hm, I'm glad the Syndicate of Anti-nihilists for Termination of Atheists (S.A.N.T.A.) wasn't involved in your short absence.

Quote[/b] ]True, the thoughts we don´t control can influence the outcome. Just like the unknown movements in a gas or the properties of all cells in an organism. It levels out in the end (more or less). This makes the margin of error higher than in physics, no doubt. But that can be overcome with statistical means.
Psychology is far away from being an exact science, but so are others. It is still a science.

I don't think it can be overcome by statistics, and I think it is not a science in the way other sciences are structured, for the reasons I've given before. I think it is educated guessing and some scientific methods applied in a field that is not entirely coverable by those methods alone. No offence intended though, I'm not arguing for it being banned or something. Just my personal examination.

Quote[/b] ]No findings about the brain prove that the mind must be attached to the matter. And no finding ever will, because you could always make the same claim. That the matter only is relay, but not the cause of the mind. I can also claim gravity is caused by little pixies with magic wands and immunize my claim against any test you could present. That´s just the difference between science and belief. If a certain belief is silly is of course open to everyone´s own judgement, but there´s no doubt that the sciencetific explanation is more rational.

Do you mean rational or convenient to common perception?
I have the feeling that this is often confused these days...
The gravity theory is a working theory, now if you show me those pixies or define their specifications and explain how they cause all gravity related effects then I'm sure I would consider that possibility in the back of my mind. A belief would be that they exist, but a theory or science wants to see a cause effect relation and how this could be conducted, which you failed to state. So you cannot really liken that to our discussion topic unless you elaborate.
If a scientific theory works, we often choose this as our explanation of choice, this is rational. But what if, in your example, pixies would actually show themselves and could be measured by scientific means, finding they are indeed the cause of gravity. Then all of a sudden, this silly belief would become a rational explanation. Hm?

Quote[/b] ]They may be out of the current reach of science, but they aren´t outside the field that science studies.

Hmm. While that is true if one clearly defines the field to cover a specific phenomenon, it still refuses to analysis as of right now, and thus you cannot use science as a way to disprove its existence, nor can you can you claim any of the current hypothesises to be the most rational, as you lack the scientific backing due to it being out of reach (example being the question of god's existence)

Quote[/b] ]With must I mean necessity. It can of course be that we both are partly right. I would say that´s even likely, but it´s only possible if we´re not taking about a singular term. If I say 'X' and you say 'not-X', one of must be wrong by necessity. Logic requires it. Relativism is actually leaving the only common ground we have, because it undermines the principle of argumentation that only rational arguments are allowed. Without this principle the discours becomes pointless.

Strict logic requires this, you are right. But in our discussion we are also tackling issues not only from a knowing,logical stance but also from a guessing, hypothetical one. You could say X, and I could say maybe X, maybe not X, but we don't know X, it could be Y for all we know, and give you reasons for both cases, which might or might not change your stance. But at the very least you will know more perspectives than before and I really don't think that is pointless. Obviously I believe that logic is not the only common ground we have, seeing as it would restrict the choice of topics we could actually discuss about and making any discussion really short and not worthy of actually having, unless you prefer yes/no answers.
Logical deduction has done much in our development, but so has intuition. If both work together, then truly great findings are made.

Pindar

12-18-2003, 21:38

Quote[/b] ]I said that whatever entity´s existence is claimed, it can be questioned for it´s cause. You say that the Deity is necessary by definition. By it´s own definition Everything I can say to that is in my understanding, a definition cannot contain necessity.

The distinction you point out about definition is the very difference between contengency and necessity. Note: Deity is considered a merger of existence and essence whereas other beings may contain an existential reality, but are only an example of a larger essence: an example would be a man, who by the designation, is associated with mankind. The man is not mankind, but a representative.

Quote[/b] ]Defining something in a way so that it can´t be questioned for it´s cause is like defining a triangle without corners or a class with only true subclass. And I would say that surely influences the validity of the statement.
Every necessity must be derived from something outside the supposed-to-be-necessary concept. Necessity by definition is like pulling yourself out of the swamp by your hair.

I think the problem here is, you are assuming that my defense of the necessity of Deity equals a proof. This is not the case. I do not consider the traits of God to be an evidence of God. Deliniating the meaning of Deity: all-knowing, all-powerful, necessary etc. is no different than pointing out a unicorn has a horn in its head. Both are true by definition. Neither requires belief.

Quote[/b] ]Why should science not be able to speak of other kinds of causes?

Because of the criteria that justifies any claim made by science. Science can speak to materiality because its focus is physical phenomena. Formal cause is also within this sphere, but efficient causal questions cannot be answered definitively due to the temporal aspect. Final causal questions are also beyond standard science because science cannot assign meaning. Take the example I gave once before of a staute. What the statue is made of can be determined; say marble. The shape also can be judged through science: say a horse. Both of these causal question are answerable because the object is physical and present. Who the sculptor was is less certain. One may argue due to texture, style etc. that the horse is by Mr. X, but this is not definitive. Final cause, the reason why, is again uncertain.

Quote[/b] ]Aristotle´s four causes are a relative unnecessary concept anyway.

Not so.

Quote[/b] ]Actually, induction is not a method whereby truth claims can be maid. That´s what the whole induction-problem is about. Only deduction can make truth claims. As Hume said: all certainty arises from the comparison of ideas.

I agree. which of course means, science cannot answer questions of truth.

Quote[/b] ]Being is just the sum of all beings, therefore an analyses of being includes all beings and you are wrong

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Pindar

12-18-2003, 21:50

LittleGrizzly,

Quote[/b] ]Quote
could it be argued that god does have an effect as in the effect he has through people who believe in him ?

Yes, in the same way this guy --> has an effect on people too.

Your notion is a good one. Utility cannot serve as an evidence for a thing. If a little girl is good because she believes in God or Santa or her father, her behavior does not prove any of these things exist, despite the fact, she is a nice little girl. Effect cannot prove existence or disprove it.

Pindar

12-18-2003, 22:04

A.Saturnus,

Despite the side issues we discuss, one cannot conclude an atheism based on your position.

Science, whose knowledge claims are tied to the phenomenal world, cannot speak to things beyond its perview.

Ockham's Razor carries no logical necessity.

Based on what you presented: a sincere analysis must suspend judgement concerning the existence of God.

Now go and sin no more. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

A.Saturnus

12-18-2003, 23:14

Imagine you throw a coin. When you throw number you score 1, if not 0. Now let´s throw the coin 100 times. What result would you expect? You know nothing about the coin. There´s no reason to assume one side may be more likely than the other. But let´s say you throw now a hundred 1´s in a row? Wouldn´t that make you suspicious? Sure it would. That can´t be chance. But why? Actually, every single result has the same chance. If you throw a combination of 1´s and 0´s without any order, you wouldn´t suspect there´s something wrong with the coin, but that arbitrary combination has exactly the same chance to occur as any other combination. Well, you could say you expected about fifty 0´s. The distribution of 1´s and 0´s is unbalanced. But what if you throw a combination of alternating 1´s and 0´s? Wouldn´t be much less suspicious, even though the distribution is now exactly as it is expected. Why can you say this combination is not the product of chance, while the arbitrary one obviously is? You can do so because of the ordening. The alternating combination can be chance just like the arbitrary one can be, BUT for the alternating one we have a simpler explanation.
Let´s say our throw was generated by an algorythme. More precise, a Turing Machine. Of course throwing a coin is not a Turing machine, but that shouldn´t matter to us. Any process that actually is responsible for generating our throw can be descripted AS IF it were a Turing machine. Now, our Turing machine has to produce a certain combination. The combination we got. We can now define simplicity as the amount of instructions the Turing machine uses to generate the necessary combination. If that was an entirely arbitrary combination, where there´s no regularity whatsoever, the minimal number of instructions is the length of the wanted combination. The Turing machine has to have the right combination given in the instructions to generate the right outcome. There´s no way to comprimate the necessary data set. In the ordened combination on the other hand, we are able to comprimate the set of instructions. Instead of the whole combination, we only need the instructions to generate the part of the combination NOT covered by regularity plus the instructions to calculate the regular parts. The more regularity we have in the combination the more we can comprimate the set of instructions.
But what is the connection between simplicity and probability? Well, let´s say the instructions for the Turing machine were randomly chosen. This assumption is not necessary at all, it´s the same for any choice we have no knowledge about, but for easyness let´s say it´s random. If we have now our highly regular combination 10101010... and we would believe that it´s actually chance, then we had to accept that certain instructions have been chosen randomly in just the one possible way to generate this specific result. Namely the instructions already containing the combination. But we rather say that it´s not chance. There´s something wrong with the coin Since the result is so regular, the instructions can be comprimated. That means the set of instructions is shorter and is therefore much more likely to be chosen randomly. The 'chance' instruction set contains a certain number of fixed instructions that cannot be altered or the result couldn´t be our combination. Granted this number of instructions, the 'regularity' instruction set has a chance to show up several times. Therefore the simpler 'regularity' set has a higher probability to be the one that applies. To visualize this, another analogy. Throw three dice at once (note: don´t confuse this analogy now with the coin - this one is about the instructions, not the combination we´ve found). If you were to bet on the outcome of the throw, on what sum would you bet? Surely not on 18, unless you want to lose. It´s much more reasonable to bet on 10 or 11. And this time the one result has definitely a higher chance than the other. There are simply more possibilities for 11 to occur than 18. For 18, all dices have to show a 6. For 11, there´s the throw 4+4+3 and 5+4+2 and several others. That shows why the simpler set has a higher chance. There are more possible throws to achieve it.
In the case of the arbitrary combination, this is all irrelevant, since there´s no simple way. In fact, chance is then already the simplest solution. But in case of the regular combination, there is a more simple solution than chance. And that´s why we have reason to say it´s not a fair coin but that there´s something involved that causes regularity.

But what has this to do with philosophy? Well, our example was about throwing a coin, but the same principle applies as well to more complex situation as long there´s a choice in uncertainty. It is better to use one rule to explaine two phenomenons than two seperate rules, because every assumed rule is like a throw of the dice. With two rules, I must throw two times the right number, while with one, I only need one good throw. A simple theory that explanes as much as a complex one is not just more elegant or more usefull, it is more probable in a strictly mathematical way. An obvious example to this is creationism vs. evolution. If one assumes that an omnipotent being created all species, then every species is a throw of it´s own because that being could have made any decisions it wanted to for a vast number of choices. If one reduces it all to a few simple mechanisms, the number of choices is greatly reduced. But it also applies to the most abstract of thoughts, not just empirical sciences. Every premise I make is analog to a throw. The fewer premises, the more probable a system of thoughts is.
Of course, this doesn´t prove the complex idea must be false. The simple idea is not necessary true. We might err by following this principle. Just as it is possible to win the lottery. But stochastics show that it´s more reasonable not to play.

Please note that this is not the proof of Occam´s Razor. It´s only a simplification. The real proof is based on Bayesian stochastics. Possible inconsitencies and vaguenesses are probable due to my failure to explane it correctly.

Papewaio

12-19-2003, 02:08

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 19 2003,06:04)]A.Saturnus,

Despite the side issues we discuss, one cannot conclude an atheism based on your position.

Science, whose knowledge claims are tied to the phenomenal world, cannot speak to things beyond its perview.

Ockham's Razor carries no logical necessity.

Based on what you presented: a sincere analysis must suspend judgement concerning the existence of God.

Now go and sin no more. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
This idea that science cannot prove or disprove something is charming but not how scientists approach a situation.

No matter how good a theory might look on paper, Dirac thought in dismay, if it predicts particles that don't exist there is somthing terribly wrong

God has no phenomenal existence therefore there is no proof of god. If something has no proof that it exists then it does not exist. It may not be correct from a philosophical view point, but that does not mean science is incorrect it means that there is something missing from philosophy in that it is ending up at the wrong answers.

Science cannot speak about something that does not exist. This does not mean that science will not review the situation if data becomes available that contradicts this stance.

A sincere analysis would not give special attibutes to something purely because it has a tradition.

Gregoshi

12-19-2003, 05:25

Holy cow (or whatever you worship) This is still going on?

Hey guys, whether you believe in a divine being or not, take some advice from the Bible - on the seventh day, even God rested... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Just kidding. You can continue on as long as you intellectual titans can sustain the discussion (in a civil way, of course). I suspect though that this topic has boiled down to a battle of wills - who's faith or lack-thereof is stronger? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Have fun ladies and gentlemen.

Papewaio

12-19-2003, 06:44

Actually that is in the thread further back... we take most of the weekend off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Pindar

12-19-2003, 09:37

Quote[/b] ]Please note that this is not the proof of Occam´s Razor. It´s only a simplification. The real proof is based on Bayesian stochastics. Possible inconsitencies and vaguenesses are probable due to my failure to explane it correctly.

'I thought it better not to duplicate the whole piece'.

Nice outline of a simple Turing machine. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Am I to assume from this that you take probability theory as definitive?

(I think it's interesting that stochastic is derived from the Greek for: to aim or guess).

A.Saturnus

12-19-2003, 22:10

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 19 2003,09:37)]
Quote[/b] ]Please note that this is not the proof of Occam´s Razor. It´s only a simplification. The real proof is based on Bayesian stochastics. Possible inconsitencies and vaguenesses are probable due to my failure to explane it correctly.

'I thought it better not to duplicate the whole piece'.

Nice outline of a simple Turing machine. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Am I to assume from this that you take probability theory as definitive?

(I think it's interesting that stochastic is derived from the Greek for: to aim or guess).
Unless I win the lottery three times in a row, I´d say probability theory is quite definite. As definite as mathematic rules for the world can get. Actually a bit more, since it can be deduced from class logic.
Of course, I would be quite sceptical about a mathematical proof for or against god. But that´s no the point here. The point is that when it makes you suspicious that your opponent in poker has always four aces, you should accept Occam´s Razor. Otherwise you´re inconsistent.

Pindar

12-19-2003, 23:42

Quote[/b] ]This idea that science cannot prove or disprove something is charming but not how scientists approach a situation.

I don't believe I ever said the above. I did agree that science is constrained by its methodology: induction.

Quote[/b] ]No matter how good a theory might look on paper, Dirac thought in dismay, if it predicts particles that don't exist there is somthing terribly wrong

I agree. However, here we have already assumed the knowledge the particles don't exist.

Quote[/b] ]God has no phenomenal existence therefore there is no proof of god.

Insofar as God doesn't appear as a phenomena in the world, I would agree.

Quote[/b] ]If something has no proof that it exists then it does not exist.

This is a logical fallacy. One cannot prove a negative.

Quote[/b] ]It may not be correct from a philosophical view point, but that does not mean science is incorrect it means that there is something missing from philosophy in that it is ending up at the wrong answers.

I want you to compare the above with the following:

It may not be correct from a 'scientific' view point, but that does not mean 'Biblical inerrancy' is incorrect it means that there is something missing from 'science' in that it is ending up at the wrong answers.

Do you see the places one can go if logical necessity is disgarded?

Quote[/b] ]Science cannot speak about something that does not exist.

I agree. Science cannot speak to things where there is no data either.

Quote[/b] ]This does not mean that science will not review the situation if data becomes available that contradicts this stance.

So, the representative for science accepts a theoretical possibility for God's existence? If so, catergorical conclusions should be avoided.

Quote[/b] ]A sincere analysis would not give special attibutes to something purely because it has a tradition.

I agree, one should generally only assign the attributes typically afforded an object.

Pindar

12-20-2003, 00:45

Quote[/b] ]Unless I win the lottery three times in a row, I´d say probability theory is quite definite. As definite as mathematic rules for the world can get. Actually a bit more, since it can be deduced from class logic.
Of course, I would be quite sceptical about a mathematical proof for or against god. But that´s no the point here. The point is that when it makes you suspicious that your opponent in poker has always four aces, you should accept Occam´s Razor. Otherwise you´re inconsistent.

I don't have a problem with using probability to determine a better as oppossed to a worse course of action. I don't have any problem with using the same calculus in determining the liklyhood of some X occuring. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow is an example. The objection I have is when one moves from the sphere of probilibity (regardless of how great the chances) to the realm of certainty. It is theoretically possible the sun will not rise on the morrow.

I believe in adhering to the bounds of logic (regardless of personal preference) so that the possible may be realized, progress continued and knowledge claims have meaning.

Papewaio

12-20-2003, 01:38

If logic cannot handle probabilities then it cannot handle the reality of the world as described by quantum physics.

By being absolute/certain then that is not real it is only real at the classical level. Think of a newspaper picture... looks good until you get close and realise it is not solid but just dots.

Logic is like looking at something from a distance and thinking it is an absolute solid when in fact it is just a set of probables under examination.

Pindar

12-20-2003, 02:44

Quote[/b] ]If logic cannot handle probabilities then it cannot handle the reality of the world as described by quantum physics.

By being absolute/certain then that is not real it is only real at the classical level. Think of a newspaper picture... looks good until you get close and realise it is not solid but just dots.

Logic is like looking at something from a distance and thinking it is an absolute solid when in fact it is just a set of probables under examination.

On the contrary, logic can handle probability. Induction is itself a kind of probability analysis. If the position being argued is not supposed to be logical then I will no longer bother with correction. If the thesis is part of the rational sphere then I will add: logic is what makes rationality, rational and must therefore be given its due.

A logical perspective affords necessity when applicable, distinctions are made when required and probability is recognized as such.

A quiet murmur begins deep inside and Papewaio thinks he hears a voice: Ignore the darkness that surrounds you and walk towards the light.

The question is: will our hero awaken from his dogmatic slumbers to the brave new world. Awake http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Ludens

12-20-2003, 12:56

Pindar,

All right, I accept that there must be first cause.
(Perhaps Eastern philosophy would have less trouble accepting that there is no first cause, but an endless chain of causes. But since to whole idea of ontology is Western philosphy, I've got the feeling that this would be like saying checkmate when playing draughts)

I also accept that the definition of God states that God must be the first cause.

But if still got one point (last post I had 2, the one before 3, so this is probably my last shot. Evade it, and you have won http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ):
According to the definition God is the neccesary first cause. Now prove to me that this definition is correct. Because it seems to me that this is just a rehash of Anselm's Proof of God: God is by definition the perfect being. If He did not exist, He would be imperfect, therefor He must exist.

By the way, it is very courageous that you alone stand up against 3 such rabid atheist as myself, Papewaio and A.Saturnus, since Brutal DLX seems sidelined in a discussion about the nature of the mind (A.Saturnus) and science (myself). Keep it up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif .

Ludens

A.Saturnus

12-20-2003, 17:49

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 18 2003,21:38)]The distinction you point out about definition is the very difference between contengency and necessity. Note: Deity is considered a merger of existence and essence whereas other beings may contain an existential reality, but are only an example of a larger essence: an example would be a man, who by the designation, is associated with mankind. The man is not mankind, but a representative.
Merger of existance and essence, hmm, I´m just trying to figure out what I must imagine by this term. The term mankind refers to a category. A category has no reality other than what it contains. That is, all humans and their relations.

Quote[/b] ]I think the problem here is, you are assuming that my defense of the necessity of Deity equals a proof. This is not the case. I do not consider the traits of God to be an evidence of God. Deliniating the meaning of Deity: all-knowing, all-powerful, necessary etc. is no different than pointing out a unicorn has a horn in its head. Both are true by definition. Neither requires belief.

I know that you´re not trying to proof god, but still, you have defended the position that atheism is not the rational estimation. But this position requires that ontology has any challenges to atheism that do not also count for theism. I think you have claimed so and my answer was that this is not the case. My point is that the origin of being is an unsolved solution as well for atheism as for theism because the solution theism presents is invalid. This solution bases - as you say - on the definition of god which says that the concept of god doesn´t require a cause. It is invalid because the problem cannot be solved by giving a definition. It´s like this:
Original problem: everthing needs a cause other than itself -> the cause for everthing needs a cause -> it cannot be the cause of everthing since it cannot be it´s own cause
theist solution: god doesn´t need a cause -> he can be cause for everthing
the premise of the solution contradicts the premise of the problem

Quote[/b] ]Aristotle´s four causes are a relative unnecessary concept anyway.

Not so.

Why is this concept unnecessary? Because there´s only one type of cause: the antecedent circumstances
The material cause isn´t actually a cause. It is rather part of the effect. Naturally, you need the material to create the statue. The material is shaped into the statue, though you need the material beforehand. It is part of the cause as it is part of the antecedent circumstances
The formal cause is not actually a horse (in your example) but the representation of horses in the mind of the sculptor. His ideas form the material into the statue. His ideas are a cause because they are part of the antecedent circumstances
The effective cause: this is a concept we are all familliar with, but the - perhaps unpleasant - truth is, there´s no effective cause. What does qualify as the actor? The sculptor you might say, but this is a anthropocentric delusion. The tools the sculptor uses can as well classified as actor. Isn´t it the tools that create the statue? Of course, the sculptor uses the tools to create the statue, but it does not stop with the sculptor. The sculptor´s master could claim he is the creator, and his master before him. It is the master´s guiding, the sculptor´s learning, his skill and his physical ability that are present to create the statue. The sculptor is a mere tool, the real creator of the statue is the antecedent circumstances
The final cause: in what way is science please not able to assign meaning? Please don´t mystify the concept of meaning more than it already is. Meaning exists where there is a cognitive process to comprehend it. For my printer, certain signals of the PC are meaningful, others not. The purpose of the statue is a manifest object, not something of a transcendent nature, it exists in the mind of the sculptor. There have been dispositions in the sculptor´s mind that urged him to create the statue. These dispositions are part of the... I am sure you can guess it already... antecedent circumstances.
Once again, three concepts reduced to one. Simplicity rules http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Quote[/b] ]I agree. which of course means, science cannot answer questions of truth.

I am sorry if from anything I said the impression has arisen that I mean it would be able too. I´m not that naive (the exploitability if this last sentence is a temptation to your conscience).

Quote[/b] ]The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

By what? (Non-rhetoric question)

Quote[/b] ]I don't have a problem with using probability to determine a better as oppossed to a worse course of action. I don't have any problem with using the same calculus in determining the liklyhood of some X occuring. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow is an example. The objection I have is when one moves from the sphere of probilibity (regardless of how great the chances) to the realm of certainty. It is theoretically possible the sun will not rise on the morrow.

It is theoretically possible that the sun will not rise on the morrow and it´s theoretical that god exists (as long as it´s definition is non-contradictory). Both is unlikely. I never spoke of certainty. That´s why I used the term rational estimation.

A.Saturnus

12-20-2003, 18:25

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 18 2003,10:12)]I don't think it can be overcome by statistics, and I think it is not a science in the way other sciences are structured, for the reasons I've given before. I think it is educated guessing and some scientific methods applied in a field that is not entirely coverable by those methods alone. No offence intended though, I'm not arguing for it being banned or something. Just my personal examination.
Whether it can be overcome by statistics is a methodological question and can be argued in a statistical debate. After the feastdays, I´ll post an inquiry of the usefullness of certain statistical procedures. Since you have an interest in statistical methodology, I´ll expect your comment on it.
Well, if you call psychology a science is of course a question of definition. My reasons for doing it are:
1) it assembles empirical evidence
2) it assembles evidence in methodical way
3) the process of assembling evidence is transparent and repeatable

Just like other scientists, psychologists test their hypotheses on evidence. It is nature itself that speaks in favour or against a theory.

Quote[/b] ]Do you mean rational or convenient to common perception?
I have the feeling that this is often confused these days...

You have doubts that science is better than dogmatism? That´s rather strange for a scientist.
The scientists have no problem with the pixies finally showing up, it´s the dogmatists that are unable to change their minds.

Quote[/b] ]Hmm. While that is true if one clearly defines the field to cover a specific phenomenon, it still refuses to analysis as of right now, and thus you cannot use science as a way to disprove its existence, nor can you can you claim any of the current hypothesises to be the most rational, as you lack the scientific backing due to it being out of reach (example being the question of god's existence)

Wait, you confuse two things here. What I said is out of reach of science are the phenomenons that cannot be explained. But god isn´t a phenomenon (at least none that cannot be explained), god is a theory. He´s like the pixies. A concept not witnessed posed to explain the phenomenal world. Just like we don´t need the pixies to explain gravity, we don´t need god to explain the world. The rational estimation is that there are no pixies and the rational estimation is that god doesn´t exist. If one of them shows up, we have to rethink this estimation.

Quote[/b] ]Strict logic requires this, you are right. But in our discussion we are also tackling issues not only from a knowing,logical stance but also from a guessing, hypothetical one. You could say X, and I could say maybe X, maybe not X, but we don't know X, it could be Y for all we know, and give you reasons for both cases, which might or might not change your stance. But at the very least you will know more perspectives than before and I really don't think that is pointless. Obviously I believe that logic is not the only common ground we have, seeing as it would restrict the choice of topics we could actually discuss about and making any discussion really short and not worthy of actually having, unless you prefer yes/no answers.
Logical deduction has done much in our development, but so has intuition. If both work together, then truly great findings are made.

Logic doesn´t require yes/no answers, at least not on every level. Not even formal logic does that always. But rationality must be the base of our discussion, otherwise it would... well, it wouldn´t be a discussion. Intuition is a tool to come up with good ideas. It´s not in contradiction with logic, but it must leave the argumentation to it. You can find a point with intuition, but not prove it (or show that it´s likely - to avoid yes/no dualisms).
It´s interesting to hear the perspective of others, but to be honest, I really prefer not just to hear it but to discuss it on a rational basis with people who are able to do so like Pindar or yourself.
Said this, I must pause it now because of lack of time. After the feastdays, I will once again emerge from the shadow to crush theist dogmas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

So merry xmas and a happy new year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/snowman.gif

Papewaio

12-22-2003, 02:30

Merry Christmass and a Happy New Year.

From Pape the Physicist and Presbyterian (you didn't see that coming did you) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/snowman.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Brutal DLX

12-22-2003, 17:42

Of course you couldn't leave into the holidays without planting a litte timebomb here. But rest assured, I'll explain your erronous ways to you once you are back again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to whom it may concern http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/snowman.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif

Ludens

12-22-2003, 18:23

Okay, apparently this discussion is going to come to a standstill during the holidays. Pity, because now I have loads of time to come up with new arguments.

But anyway, merry christmass and a happy new year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif .

Ludens

Pindar

12-23-2003, 08:41

Merry Christmas to the atheist rabble

And to those who stand on the bridge against the barbarian horde http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif

katar

12-23-2003, 11:33

Quote[/b] ]Merry Christmas to the atheist rabble

this member of the atheist rabble is busy raking in the money on double pay while all you christians are involved in the yearly gluttony that is xmas. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

merry Christmas guys, i couldn`t do it without you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Pindar

12-24-2003, 03:01

Master Ludens;

I read your most recent lament so I thought I would try and post something you can mull over during the holidays. I don't know if I'll have time to advance the discussion much, but I shall see.

In any case, your post:

Quote[/b] ]All right, I accept that there must be first cause.
(Perhaps Eastern philosophy would have less trouble accepting that there is no first cause, but an endless chain of causes. But since to whole idea of ontology is Western philosphy, I've got the feeling that this would be like saying checkmate when playing draughts)

I also accept that the definition of God states that God must be the first cause.

But if still got one point (last post I had 2, the one before 3, so this is probably my last shot. Evade it, and you have won ):
According to the definition God is the neccesary first cause. Now prove to me that this definition is correct. Because it seems to me that this is just a rehash of Anselm's Proof of God: God is by definition the perfect being. If He did not exist, He would be imperfect, therefor He must exist.

The difference between what I have proffered and St. Anselm's ontological argument is the latter is put forward as a proof, the former is not. The view I explained does not require ascent. It is, at best, a simple demonstration that there is a general coherence to a theistic approach in regard to explaining being, morality etc. that is abscent from a non-theistic approach. This was done initially simply to show the typically assigned characteristics of Deity. While I agree that coherence is an aspect of any truth claim, I do not consider coherence alone as sufficient when explaining reality.

I have argued throughout the inability of science to venture into the realm of God and that any attempt to do so is a catergory mistake. I do not believe rational models put forward i.e. the ontological, teleological, or cosmological arguments for God, in and of themselves, have much swayng force either. I argee with Kant that knowledge has its root in experience: conceptual schema divorced from the empirical realm are empty. Consequently, there is only one viable method to approaching the Divine: revelation.

Revelation is an asymetric relation. The creature cannot force the Creator to act or reveal. The nature of any epiphany, depending on the religious system, could be characterized as either intuitive or somthing akin to empirical in its structure. Regardless, revelation is a closed relation. Moses' experience on the mountain cannot be debunked simply because of its fantastic element. One is by no means forced to accept Moses' claims any more than one is forced to agree to any other claimed experience. Neither is one able to reject it based on any logical appeal. One may find it more or less believable based upon other such claiments, but the experience maintains an internal independence.

In sum, my view is simply that there is no 'disproof' or 'proof' for God. Ascenting to the notion of God may mean more or less explanitory power regarding things. Regardless, the scientist must remain silent on the issue. By the same token, the pastor's sermon does not equal a proof. If such a Being exists, the only way such knowledge can be attained is through revelation. In the abscence of such experience, a certain open skepticism seems natural, but that is quite different from a catergorical rejection.

Papewaio

12-24-2003, 03:14

If there was an exchange of information (epiphany)there would be a way of measuring it.

Quote[/b] ]It is, at best, a simple demonstration that there is a general coherence to a theistic approach in regard to explaining being, morality etc. that is abscent from a non-theistic

Here is a non-theistic definition of morality.

It is a attribute that adds to the evolutionary fitness of a species by having individuals sacrifice for the greater good of the group. This may mean a disadvantage or death to the individual, but a net benefit to the group. Moral groups can spend more time on acquiring external resources rather then watching their backs and expenditure on a closed set of resources.

Being. Define being and I can give a non-theistic definition.

Pindar

12-24-2003, 03:20

Quote[/b] ]By the way, it is very courageous that you alone stand up against 3 such rabid atheist as myself, Papewaio and A.Saturnus, since Brutal DLX seems sidelined in a discussion about the nature of the mind (A.Saturnus) and science (myself). Keep it up

Bows. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Pindar

12-24-2003, 08:49

Quote[/b] ]If there was an exchange of information (epiphany)there would be a way of measuring it.

This is not necessarily the case. Recall, in the New Testament account of the first martyr: Stephen saw the Lord standing on the right hand of God while the Jewish leaders in his presence saw nothing. Now, either Stephen saw what he claimed or he didn't, but there is no definitiave way to tell.

Secondly, I have already explained that science can only measure material causality. It cannot look to efficient casuality. If there were a monk who claimed he always felt the Lord's presence whenever he prayed and a physical analysis demonstrated a distinct change in his neural patterns during prayer: this would not equal a proof for God.

Quote[/b] ]Here is a non-theistic definition of morality.

It is a attribute that adds to the evolutionary fitness of a species by having individuals sacrifice for the greater good of the group. This may mean a disadvantage or death to the individual, but a net benefit to the group. Moral groups can spend more time on acquiring external resources rather then watching their backs and expenditure on a closed set of resources.

Are we shifting the focus?

Utilitarian ethical systems are problematic. The greater good is arbitrary. Even with the species survival qualifier, one could easily use the above as a justification for local genocide or a host of other typically repugnant behaviors: the Jews must die so that man can continue to move forward.

Second, why should the individual care about or sacrifice for an abstraction like species survival? So what if individual excess is dilatorius to the group. If I have the means to take what I want when I want it, I don't need to watch my back. If I am overcome by some other, all that awaits is the void, so it doesn't matter.

Your definition fails.

Quote[/b] ]From Pape the Physicist and Presbyterian (you didn't see that coming did you)

This is interesting I did notice a certain Calvanistic determinism in you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Pindar

12-24-2003, 08:55

I forgot one.

Quote[/b] ]Being. Define being and I can give a non-theistic definition.

I'm not sure why you bring this up. There are several different definitions for being depending on the system: i.e. what reveals itself, that which has mass and extension, the locus of meaning etc. None that I know of are exlcusively theistic.

Ludens

12-24-2003, 17:03

Master Pindar,

So you are basically daying that there is a hole, named the first cause, in which a theist can put God, but an atheist can put nothing.

Though one. I shall need a few days to think that over. But do you mean by asymetric?

Whishing you an otherwise carefree Christmas Holiday,
Ludens

Pindar

12-24-2003, 18:09

Master Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]So you are basically daying that there is a hole, named the first cause, in which a theist can put God, but an atheist can put nothing.

We are working off of generalities here. The atheism I have been responding to is basically a materialism to which the investigative methodology is science. Based on that positioning, there is nothing that can fill the hole, as it were. Materialism cannot explain its own origin. One cannot get a something out of a nothing.

Quote[/b] ] But do you mean by asymetric?

I mean a relation that is not open to both parties. I used an example of a fish in an aquarium earlier. The fish is confined to his tank while the fish's and aquarium's owner can put his hand in the tank or withdraw it at his leisure.

Quote[/b] ]Whishing you an otherwise carefree Christmas Holiday

Thank you sir.

Ludens

12-26-2003, 13:46

Pindar,

Today is my last chance for adding something to the discussion before the next year. After thinking it over several times, the best I can come up with is:

Isn't God (traditionally) supposed to have more functions than just that of first cause?

Your argument is convincing against a materialism, but it does not argue for God, directly. It just point to something metaphysical, which COULD be God.

A.Saturnus

12-27-2003, 20:37

Quote[/b] ]In sum, my view is simply that there is no 'disproof' or 'proof' for God. Ascenting to the notion of God may mean more or less explanitory power regarding things. Regardless, the scientist must remain silent on the issue. By the same token, the pastor's sermon does not equal a proof. If such a Being exists, the only way such knowledge can be attained is through revelation. In the abscence of such experience, a certain open skepticism seems natural, but that is quite different from a catergorical rejection.

Pindar, how do you destinguish between knowledge and belief? What qualifies revelation as knowledge? I have had supernatural experiences. What criteria must be fulfilled to call them revelations and knowledge?

Quote[/b] ]Utilitarian ethical systems are problematic. The greater good is arbitrary. Even with the species survival qualifier, one could easily use the above as a justification for local genocide or a host of other typically repugnant behaviors: the Jews must die so that man can continue to move forward.

All ethical systems are problematic. Pure Utilitarism is inconsistent, but Utilitarism of Rules isn´t. The greater good is as arbitrary as any deontological principle.
No ethical system can be proven, since all moral values are relative. It is simply a question of choice which ethical system you accept. In any case does morality not pose a problem to atheism as explained in this thread before.

A.Saturnus returns into the shadow

iforgotmyname

12-28-2003, 23:15

For athieist and the such...

http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp....3145945 (http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp?sermon_ID=lazarusunbound_12152003145945)

http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp....0031601 (http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp?sermon_ID=lazarusunbound_121120031601)

http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp....0315317 (http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp?sermon_ID=lazarusunbound_1215200315317)

http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp....3154245 (http://www.sermoncast.net/ic4.asp?sermon_ID=lazarusunbound_12112003154245)

(I especially suggest the 2nd and 4th)

You dont have to listen to em all. Just putting them out there. And they are different links.

iforgotmyname

12-28-2003, 23:27

To Saturnus...

If there were no God in control and all moral values are relative and we had no absolutes to base our morals and life on then there would simply be chaos. Even many of those who do not profess Christ loosly base some of there morals on The Bible's absolutes because of the deep Christian heritage of the country. This is much better explained in these two Items...

How Shall We Then Live? - The rise and decline of western thought and culture.
http://www.lazarusunbound.com/schaeffervidset.html
(The Video Series)

How Shall We Then Live? - The rise and decline of western thought and culture.
http://www.amazon.com/exec....=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891072926/qid=1072649179//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-9047568-3884115?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
(Book Version)

I Would also suggest this to anyone interested in history. Its a must have.

Necessary History Special
http://www.lazarusunbound.com/historyspecial.html
(A video series and two books) Good price

Sometimes he Gives stuff out for free

rasoforos

12-28-2003, 23:47

why should there be a god to scare the hell out of us ( literally) for us to have moral values? there is no need for a god...

Someone can be an atheist but compasionate , virtuous , with respect on human life and someone can be a devout christian/muslim or whatever other religion that teaches lvoe and tolerance and still have no regard to human life or moral objections ( in fact most people without moral objections cover their actions behind God)

As to basing our morale on the bible ... like killing children and wishing from our all mercifull god to destroy our enemies because they believe in another religion ( old testament) ... or the 'women are inferior and made to serve the man' ( corinthians) and 'see what will happen to your sorry ass if you are not a christian' attidute of Apocalypsis , of the new testament?

There is no need for a god for people to have moral values. There is a need of education and of philosophy...for the past 2 thoussant years people had plenty of 'compassionate merciful god' through one of the three main forms of monotheism, and no education...and they plunged the earth in blood and religious violence.

katar

12-29-2003, 00:41

Quote[/b] ]iforgotmyname

many thanks for the light relief, it`s always welcome, especially at this time of year. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

iforgotmyname

12-29-2003, 01:32

lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Pindar

12-29-2003, 05:29

Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]Isn't God (traditionally) supposed to have more functions than just that of first cause?

Yes. He is. Placing Deity in the role of First Casue does not preclude the possibility of Deity fulfilling other functions as well.

Quote[/b] ]Your argument is convincing against a materialism, but it does not argue for God, directly. It just point to something metaphysical, which COULD be God.

That is correct. Medieval thinkers argued that the metaphysical placement of First Cause could not be any Being other than the Divine given the parallel characteristic of necessity.

Pindar

12-29-2003, 06:30

A.Saturnus,

Quote[/b] ]how do you destinguish between knowledge and belief?

A knowledge claim would be any posit claiming to express reality as it is. Knowledge would be the understanding that said claim is cogent.

Belief does not claim to be knowledge and is an inherently subjective view regarding some X that does not carry logical force or necessity.

Quote[/b] ]What qualifies revelation as knowledge?

Depending on the form revelation is presented under, it would qualify according to the same standard as an empircal claim or an intuitive rubric.

Quote[/b] ]I have had supernatural experiences. What criteria must be fulfilled to call them revelations and knowledge?

I believe, a revelation would be defined as experience the source of which is taken to be beyond the temporal realm. Whether this belief is correct is a separate question. Further, should the subject recieve sufficient 'proof' as to the rectitude of said revelation that does not necessitate others recognize it as such. Consequently, Moses may be on the mountain and receive Heavenly visitation X. He may further be convinced that said visitation was in fact from a Heavenly source and not simply a delusion. This does not mean the Hebrews at the foot of the mountain are required to believe Moses' claims any more than a scientist in Paris is required to simply accept an announcment from a scientist in L.A. regarding a room temperature cold-fussion discovery. Any knowledge claim should have an attendant verification mechanism. With revelation, this may be others being able to recieve some Heavenly 'proof' of their own.

Quote[/b] ]All ethical systems are problematic. Pure Utilitarism is inconsistent, but Utilitarism of Rules isn´t.

You will have to tell me which rules based utilitarianism you are thinking of and the grounding of those rules.

Quote[/b] ]The greater good is as arbitrary as any deontological principle.

Not so, a deontic system can claim a Divine source. This is typically the case with the 'Thou Shalt' principle. This is an appeal to authority, but not necessarily arbitrary.

Quote[/b] ]No ethical system can be proven, since all moral values are relative. It is simply a question of choice which ethical system you accept.

A moral being cannot see the system they operate under as relative. Morality places demands upon the subject over and above personal preference. For example: rape is considered an evil regardless of time or place or opportunity. Any who would defend the practice would themselves be considered morally tainted. A moral paradigm is not subject to what is fashionable.

Quote[/b] ]In any case does morality not pose a problem to atheism as explained in this thread before.

I have read through the defenses for an atheist morality posted earlier, but do not recall any that were particularly compeling and moved much above the level of base ascertion except for Papewaio's.

The question is not whether an atheist can be moral but whither is the compeling force. Most atheists seem to co-opt the moral edicts of the religion with which they are most familiar.

Since you have returned, I will have to respond to your earlier post.

Quote[/b] ]A.Saturnus returns into the shadow

I am a servant of the Secret Fire...The dark fire will not avail you...Go back to the shadow You shall not pass

Parmenio

12-29-2003, 12:22

Quote[/b] ]
The question is not whether an atheist can be moral but whither is the compeling force. Most atheists seem to co-opt the moral edicts of the religion with which they are most familiar.

Some people are just naturally moral. They find it diffcult to understand why others would not be when morality makes much more sense.

Pindar

12-29-2003, 17:49

Quote[/b] ]Some people are just naturally moral. They find it diffcult to understand why others would not be when morality makes much more sense.

I believe that is true. Some people may indeed have a natural affinity toward their fellow men regardless of metaphysical understanding or its lack. The point here is to properly ground those sentiments according to logic.

Papewaio

12-30-2003, 03:52

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 24 2003,16:49)]
Quote[/b] ]Here is a non-theistic definition of morality.

It is a attribute that adds to the evolutionary fitness of a species by having individuals sacrifice for the greater good of the group. This may mean a disadvantage or death to the individual, but a net benefit to the group. Moral groups can spend more time on acquiring external resources rather then watching their backs and expenditure on a closed set of resources.

Are we shifting the focus?

Utilitarian ethical systems are problematic. The greater good is arbitrary. Even with the species survival qualifier, one could easily use the above as a justification for local genocide or a host of other typically repugnant behaviors: the Jews must die so that man can continue to move forward.

Second, why should the individual care about or sacrifice for an abstraction like species survival? So what if individual excess is dilatorius to the group. If I have the means to take what I want when I want it, I don't need to watch my back. If I am overcome by some other, all that awaits is the void, so it doesn't matter.

Your definition fails.
I was responding to the shift in focus.

My definition of morality is not flawed because it includes the very defects we find abhorrent. It fits reality. Holocaust, genocide, rape, murder all fit into my definition. It is a morality based on Darwinistic principles and stemming from a win-loss attitude as opposed to evolution and a win-win attitude.

To some people the only way to win (express their genes in another generation) is to prevent another person doing it. Either by killing mass amounts of competitors or the smallest one (children are far more likely to be killed by a step parent).

Morals is not just good morals it is what we would term bad. Good morals would be of the win-win variety while the bad ones I have just alluded to.

If an individuals excesses means that another cooperative group can come in and conquer them then the cooperative bunch survives. By being moral to each other the other group can win over the other. Look at how the Spanish conquistors used technology and politics to win the Americas. The Spanish where possible set local against local by getting greedy individuals to betray the group or a greedy group to betray the tribe or to get a tribe to attack another.

If the individual greed creates a stronger more unified group then it will survive. But most tyrant based groups have to have some sort of net give back. This is normally done by having an enemy (real or imaginary is not important) that is justified as being able to take more then the tyrant would expect.

Duraz_asks

12-30-2003, 07:45

good words katar.... the fact is the reason us non-believers dont believe in god is because the things in the bible are insane or the religious people contridict everything it means for example... noahs arc, comon only the most gulable people would believe such a thing..

can u really believe that someguy built an enourmous ship of wood went and found 2 of every animal on the planet and carried them until the oceans went down then went and placed each one where it came from, all the while thease carnivors on the ship didnt eat any other animals on board, plus sry but 2 animals cant repopulate an entire spieces, which brings me to adam and eve which is about as true as the world being started by adam and steve, and if it were true and adam ate the apple its gods fault not adams..

he put the tree there in the first place, let the devil in the garden of eden and gave adam the smarts of a turkey.. personaly if a snake told me to eat and apple of a tree i would probably kill the snake for talking then never think of eating apples again....

ok now for the contridiction.. heres where court is adjurned.. for everything in the bible it seems man has a way out of it thou shalt not kill, but its in the name of god so its allright, god wants me to kill the people who believe in the same thing but call it a different name.. if u look around the world and in the past u will see many different religions all with a variety of gods beliefs heavens and morals with all these religions which one does one choose.. they will probably choose the one that sounds more logical and likely(smart logical people)or they will go for the one that promises everything on a silver platter so long as u ask for forgivness(lazy gulable people)..

in my mind bhuddism is the most likely religion they believed in no gods and didnt ask for anything but for life and peace they werent greedy like the money gubing cleargy or any other comon snob in the world.. anywho, i believe what the bible means was for good in the world but its a little to far feched..

with all the stories in it if u believe in those why not believe in paul bunion or other tall tails.. see i think the MAN who wrote the bible had some of these perdicaments infront of him and wanted to change the situation: people are dying from rotten pork :A: well lets tell them god said not to eat it and theywont die : i dont want me and my family killed :A: oh god said thou shalt not kill.. and if u brake these rules u'll be lit on fire for eternity unless of course u ask for forgivness which blows away the point of having rules and punishment for breaking them...

anyway if u want to believe in this then fine what ever floats ur boat but dont discourage me or the next man for not believing in ur system besides if u do u'll burn in hell for judging unless of course u ask for forgivness. guy reading bible-> http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif

Pindar

12-30-2003, 20:37

Papewaio,

We can explore this road a little if you wish.

Quote[/b] ]Morals is not just good morals it is what we would term bad. Good morals would be of the win-win variety while the bad ones I have just alluded to.

This is not correct. Morality means that which is proper, that which is good. To designate someone as moral means to recognize a certain rectitude. A deviation from that standard does not mean simply a different approach, but an immorality. To assume a moral positioning is to assume an exclusionary standard. If the system condemns rape, one who rapes is not simply following a different ethic, they are considered to be comitting an evil act.

Quote[/b] ]My definition of morality is not flawed because it includes the very defects we find abhorrent. It fits reality. Holocaust, genocide, rape, murder all fit into my definition. It is a morality based on Darwinistic principles and stemming from a win-loss attitude as opposed to evolution and a win-win attitude.

To some people the only way to win (express their genes in another generation) is to prevent another person doing it. Either by killing mass amounts of competitors or the smallest one (children are far more likely to be killed by a step parent).

It appears you have attempted to model a moral system by looking at the natural state. The flaw is twofold: the first regards structure. Your position operates according to utility. Using an end to justifiy the means is inherently abritrary given the end is undefined. Accordingly, your view is unable to provide a necessary 'ought'. You can suggest a goal like: passing on one's genes, but there is no force behind it. One could just as easily propose wealth as the standard and thereby justify any and all means for its attainment.

The second error that informs your position is its inability to exclude. By embracing the abhorrent as simply an alternative means you are not describing a morality as much as an amorality. Your view forces acceptence of the rapist and the Nazi. The role of ethics is to model the good. Your view does not do that and thus is more properly described as amoral. Describing behavior does not equal a profession of behavior.

Pindar

12-30-2003, 20:41

Quote[/b] ]the fact is the reason us non-believers dont believe in god is because the things in the bible are insane or the religious people contridict everything it means for example... noahs arc, comon only the most gulable people would believe such a thing..

can u really believe that someguy built an enourmous ship of wood went and found 2 of every animal on the planet and carried them until the oceans went down then went and placed each one where it came from, all the while thease carnivors on the ship didnt eat any other animals on board, plus sry but 2 animals cant repopulate an entire spieces, which brings me to adam and eve which is about as true as the world being started by adam and steve, and if it were true and adam ate the apple its gods fault not adams..

he put the tree there in the first place, let the devil in the garden of eden and gave adam the smarts of a turkey.. personaly if a snake told me to eat and apple of a tree i would probably kill the snake for talking then never think of eating apples again....

ok now for the contridiction.. heres where court is adjurned.. for everything in the bible it seems man has a way out of it thou shalt not kill, but its in the name of god so its allright, god wants me to kill the people who believe in the same thing but call it a different name.. if u look around the world and in the past u will see many different religions all with a variety of gods beliefs heavens and morals with all these religions which one does one choose.. they will probably choose the one that sounds more logical and likely(smart logical people)or they will go for the one that promises everything on a silver platter so long as u ask for forgivness(lazy gulable people)..

in my mind bhuddism is the most likely religion they believed in no gods and didnt ask for anything but for life and peace they werent greedy like the money gubing cleargy or any other comon snob in the world.. anywho, i believe what the bible means was for good in the world but its a little to far feched..

with all the stories in it if u believe in those why not believe in paul bunion or other tall tails.. see i think the MAN who wrote the bible had some of these perdicaments infront of him and wanted to change the situation: people are dying from rotten pork :A: well lets tell them god said not to eat it and theywont die : i dont want me and my family killed :A: oh god said thou shalt not kill.. and if u brake these rules u'll be lit on fire for eternity unless of course u ask for forgivness which blows away the point of having rules and punishment for breaking them...

Sectarian issues are not under discussion, but the notion of God.

kiwitt

12-30-2003, 21:59

The start of this thread talked about Morals and why we have them. So on this point IMHO.

NOTE: Where I have used the word men, I mean men and women.

1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from? [/I}

1) Morals is an act of self-preservation. If you look after others, they may look after you. Think of all the volunteers who go searching for complete strangers. They do not do this for any reward other than saving someones life.

2) Morals are based on G_d's word. Not true. The Bible and other sacred texts as we know it was written by men for men. In early times and lands where there were no written laws, these books served to assist these people, with interesting stories and guidelines on how to live.

3) Morals are based on Love. Love for yourself and others. If you love someone, you will get it back.

[I] 2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).

see answer above.

Also it depends on the existing of G_d. G_d doesn't exist except in the minds of men.

A good book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail traced the descendents of Christ to the Merovingian Dynasty (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingians) and this fact was covered up the Cathlolic Church in the Middle Ages. As the thought that Jesus Christ (A good moral person) didn't die on the Cross, would send shockwaves through the Church, already at war with the Moslems and thereby lower the morale of the Crusuaders and more important their source of revenue the believers. OK, this may prove that Jesus was not the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, but it does put the existence of G_d into question; at least G_d based on Christian Beliefs.

In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy

Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System? In effect, from a religious point of view or a G_d view, then your Faith is in your fellow Man. Man who is without Morality or, at best/worst, defines his own, individual, Morality.

That is why we have laws. Just as there are men that have different levels of Intelligence, Emotion and Wisdom, we also have different levels of Morality. Laws are a baseline, and Judges and Juries decide when there is doubt. While not perfect it works 99% of the time.

The Law's consequence provides no true motivation toward morality for those, who, are willing and/or are capable of enduring or escaping the Law's consequence. Consquently, there is little or no habor nor ultimate protection for Man.

Based on the fact that all men have differing levels of morality, this is an unavoidable fact of life. Eventually most of the bad ones do get caught.

G_d's consequence, on the other hand, is absolute, inescapable and equitable. It serves as a moral compass and inhibitor to a degree that the Law, Man's Law, can NEVER serve.

This depends on the fact that G_d exists and that is another debate altogether.

If there is, in fact, Good and Evil, how can it be defined? Without a *certain* (literal definition) moral base, can Good and/or Evil be defined and known? Doesn't Morality require a certainty.

As I mentioned previosly there are differing levels of marality in men. A similar debate can be had about intelligence; IQ is one way but not full-proof. EQ is for emotion. Maybe it is time for an MQ. Use this Purity Test (http://www.thespark.com/purity/purity.html) to see what yours is.

[B]IMHO, I believe that many who are without Faith or Belief, are so, greatly, because of a confusion between G_d and religion. The two are not the same and that's another thread.... [B]

I couldn't agree more.

kiwitt

12-30-2003, 23:00

The Purity (Morality) Test is here (http://www.thespark.com/puritytest/)

Sorry for the error.

Papewaio

12-31-2003, 01:03

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 31 2003,04:37)]Morality means that which is proper, that which is good. To designate someone as moral means to recognize a certain rectitude. A deviation from that standard does not mean simply a different approach, but an immorality.
Mankind includes woman.
Moral includes evil. For the purposes of what I was defining. Could call it something else that includes good and evil codes of conduct.

Only those who survive say what is moral. Most 'good' morals are only displayed in a non-stress situation. The real morals or code that someone lives by is really only seen under stress.

Note for the wits: woman does not equal evil in this statement.

katar

12-31-2003, 01:28

Quote[/b] ]The Purity (Morality) Test

did it, and got 80%, not bad for an atheist. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

kiwitt

12-31-2003, 01:50

I scored the Perfect Middle Point.

49% are more pure than me
2% are like me
49% are less pure than me

The score is 61%

This proves a point. Morality is different for everyone and it can be measured, not just theorised on.

Duraz_asks

12-31-2003, 09:58

im 57 percent pure 60 percent are more than me

Duraz_asks

12-31-2003, 10:11

pindar the notion of god is the notion of sectarian,,, supposedly god told these men to right these books, well if all 500 thousand (however many there are) books there are and how ever many religions there are, are true then at the same time they are all false

Teutonic Knight

12-31-2003, 21:09

Quote[/b] ]can u really believe that someguy built an enourmous ship of wood went and found 2 of every animal on the planet and carried them until the oceans went down then went and placed each one where it came from, all the while thease carnivors on the ship didnt eat any other animals on board, plus sry but 2 animals cant repopulate an entire spieces, which brings me to adam and eve which is about as true as the world being started by adam and steve, and if it were true and adam ate the apple its gods fault not adams..

he put the tree there in the first place, let the devil in the garden of eden and gave adam the smarts of a turkey.. personaly if a snake told me to eat and apple of a tree i would probably kill the snake for talking then never think of eating apples again....

ok....

first of all there were 7 of each species. read the bible before comment on its accuracy. And, According to faith God caused the animals to become docile enough to live in close quarters. That's in the bible too. read it.

The apple is symbolism. It was not actually an apple but some sin of the flesh. God was testing Adam's obedience to his will. God explicitly told adam not to indulge in this particular thing. Adam did it with the nudging of Satan. The fall of man and original sin.

If you believe in a supreme being who has nce and authority over all the laws of nature then none of this is hard to believe. It all comes down to faith. The existence of God cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven, it is a matter of personal belief or disbelief.

[QUOTE=Quote ]ok now for the contridiction.. heres where court is adjurned.. for everything in the bible it seems man has a way out of it thou shalt not kill, but its in the name of god so its allright, god wants me to kill the people who believe in the same thing but call it a different name.. if u look around the world and in the past u will see many different religions all with a variety of gods beliefs heavens and morals with all these religions which one does one choose.. they will probably choose the one that sounds more logical and likely(smart logical people)or they will go for the one that promises everything on a silver platter so long as u ask for forgivness(lazy gulable people)..

in my mind bhuddism is the most likely religion they believed in no gods and didnt ask for anything but for life and peace they werent greedy like the money gubing cleargy or any other comon snob in the world.. anywho, i believe what the bible means was for good in the world but its a little to far feched..

with all the stories in it if u believe in those why not believe in paul bunion or other tall tails.. see i think the MAN who wrote the bible had some of these perdicaments infront of him and wanted to change the situation: people are dying from rotten pork :A: well lets tell them god said not to eat it and theywont die : i dont want me and my family killed :A: oh god said thou shalt not kill.. and if u brake these rules u'll be lit on fire for eternity unless of course u ask for forgivness which blows away the point of having rules and punishment for breaking them...

anyway if u want to believe in this then fine what ever floats ur boat but dont discourage me or the next man for not believing in ur system besides if u do u'll burn in hell for judging unless of course u ask for forgivness. guy reading bible->

katar

12-31-2003, 21:36

Quote[/b] ]The apple is symbolism. It was not actually an apple but some sin of the flesh.

i thought the bible was supposed to be literal, not symbolic? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif

Ashen

12-31-2003, 21:50

Its both.

katar

12-31-2003, 21:56

Quote[/b] ]Its both.

i got to the stage where i just consider it a good read. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

abortretryfail

12-31-2003, 23:22

i may be missing something here, but this really seems fairly simple to me.
Extroardinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If, contrary to all observable evidence, a benevolent, omniscient superbeing is responsible for reality (this i believe qualifies as an extraordinary claim), then offer to the infidel one shred of verifiable evidence and i'll jump on the Jesus boat faster than you can say kumbayah my lord
This not being the case i think any reasonable, intellectually honest person must conclude that there isn't any God. Or at the very least he is out of the loop in any meaningful way.

Occams Razor backs me up.

Beware the sophist

Ludens

01-01-2004, 12:57

Pindar,

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 29 2003,06:30)]
Quote[/b] ]The greater good is as arbitrary as any deontological principle.

Not so, a deontic system can claim a Divine source. This is typically the case with the 'Thou Shalt' principle. This is an appeal to authority, but not necessarily arbitrary.
Then deontologic systems are based on a Divine Source which can only be proved through circular arguments. So here, too, there is no logic neccesity to follow these rules when it doesn't suit you.

Yes, it is less arbitrary, but a theistic moral doesn't get us any nearer to a definition of morality than an atheistic one.

Ludens

01-01-2004, 13:20

abortretryfail,

Quote[/b] (abortretryfail @ Dec. 31 2003,23:22)]Occams Razor backs me up.

The trouble is that this discussion is spread over 13 long pages, so newcomers don't bother trying read the entire thread.
Pindar, A.Saturnus and me have discussed Occam's razor extensively several pages back. The point advance for Occam's razor was that it works, and can be proven. The point advanced against it was that estimating thruth by probability is arbitrary. This is the discussion around Occam's razor in a nutshell (my apologies to any of the contributors if I have left something out).

So, you have indeed missed something http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

Duraz_asks, Teutonic Knight,

I appreciate you are trying to contribute to the discussion, but the existence of God and the thruth of (passages of) the Bible are not under discussion.
This discussion has drifted away from the starting point of morality, to the rationality of the atheist claim (translated: is not-believing in God the most logical option?).

Ludens

01-01-2004, 14:30

Ohh, I almost forgot...

Happy birthday, A.Saturnus.

katar

01-01-2004, 14:40

Quote[/b] ]translated: is not-believing in God the most logical option?

some say yes, some say no..... i say yes to not believing.

happy new year. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Pindar

01-01-2004, 15:23

A Saturnus,

(My appologies for the delayed response. It's interesting how the ethical question prompts so many responses while God's existence is much drier fair).

In any case: searching back to page Nine I found your post.

Quote[/b] ]Merger of existance and essence, hmm, I´m just trying to figure out what I must imagine by this term. The term mankind refers to a category. A category has no reality other than what it contains. That is, all humans and their relations.

Essence reflects the larger set a particular belongs to. If we state, 'Dave is a man' and then say, 'Barry is a man' there are two distinct objects said to share a commonality. Neither Dave or Barry can claim 'man' as an exclusive trait. The common elements that allow Dave and Barry to share this status 'man' constitues the essence. The same might be said of other traits for example, gender. Therefore a given object may belong to multiple sets. In the case of Deity, the object belongs to a class all its own: existence claims and essence claims are merged.

Quote[/b] ]I know that you´re not trying to proof god, but still, you have defended the position that atheism is not the rational estimation. But this position requires that ontology has any challenges to atheism that do not also count for theism. I think you have claimed so and my answer was that this is not the case. My point is that the origin of being is an unsolved solution as well for atheism as for theism because the solution theism presents is invalid. This solution bases - as you say - on the definition of god which says that the concept of god doesn´t require a cause. It is invalid because the problem cannot be solved by giving a definition. It´s like this:
Original problem: everthing needs a cause other than itself -> the cause for everthing needs a cause -> it cannot be the cause of everthing since it cannot be it´s own cause
theist solution: god doesn´t need a cause -> he can be cause for everthing
the premise of the solution contradicts the premise of the problem

Presenting an absolute as a necessary and sufficient condition for being is not invalid in and of itself.
A theist would reject your first posit: 'everything needs a cause other than itself'. A triangle doesn't require an outside causality. It is by definition. Regarding temporal objects: that status, along with its attendent contingency, precludes any such object from acting as its own cause. It does not follow from that recognition that all objects are so consrained i.e. an absolute.

Quote[/b] ]Why is this concept unnecessary? Because there´s only one type of cause: the antecedent circumstances

Not so. The definition of cause does not need to be so narrow. Aristotelian causality does not simply look at time, but also at what furthers the explanation of a given thing.

Quote[/b] ]The material cause isn´t actually a cause. It is rather part of the effect. Naturally, you need the material to create the statue. The material is shaped into the statue, though you need the material beforehand. It is part of the cause as it is part of the antecedent circumstances

You need the material beforehand...It (materiality) is rather part of the effect This seems confused.

Any object in the world always already has a material cause. Material casuality is a recognition based on the now, the physicalness of a thing.

Quote[/b] ]The formal cause is not actually a horse (in your example) but the representation of horses in the mind of the sculptor. His ideas form the material into the statue. His ideas are a cause because they are part of the antecedent circumstances

A formal cause does not require an appeal to intent. Rather it takes the object at hand and looks to the object's extension as a way of understanding.

Quote[/b] ]The effective cause: this is a concept we are all familliar with, but the - perhaps unpleasant - truth is, there´s no effective cause. What does qualify as the actor? The sculptor you might say, but this is a anthropocentric delusion. The tools the sculptor uses can as well classified as actor. Isn´t it the tools that create the statue? Of course, the sculptor uses the tools to create the statue, but it does not stop with the sculptor. The sculptor´s master could claim he is the creator, and his master before him. It is the master´s guiding, the sculptor´s learning, his skill and his physical ability that are present to create the statue. The sculptor is a mere tool, the real creator of the statue is the antecedent circumstances

By effective cause, I think you meant to type efficient. Efficient cause is what brought the object to be. This is what is antecendent and could be seen as all the things you mention in the statue example: the actual sculptor, his tools, his instruction.

Quote[/b] ]The final cause: in what way is science please not able to assign meaning? Please don´t mystify the concept of meaning more than it already is. Meaning exists where there is a cognitive process to comprehend it. For my printer, certain signals of the PC are meaningful, others not. The purpose of the statue is a manifest object, not something of a transcendent nature, it exists in the mind of the sculptor. There have been dispositions in the sculptor´s mind that urged him to create the statue. These dispositions are part of the... I am sure you can guess it already... antecedent circumstances.

Final cause is the purpose of a thing. For the statue it may be to beautify the city. For an acorn it would be to become a tree.

Question: Meaning exists where there is a cognitive process to comprehend it. For my printer, certain signals of the PC are meaningful, others not. Does this mean you believe your computer thinks and is therefore aware? Do you feel the same about your calculator?

As far as assigning meaning: science can explain the how and where and processes involved in the death of a six year old girl hit by a drunk driver and killed. It cannot quantify the meaning the little girl had for the mother.

Quote[/b] ]Quote
I agree. which of course means, science cannot answer questions of truth.

I am sorry if from anything I said the impression has arisen that I mean it would be able too. I´m not that naive (the exploitability if this last sentence is a temptation to your conscience).

Temptation resisted. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

By what? (Non-rhetoric question)

I presented a fellow I named Barry earlier in this post. A complete break down of all the parts of Barry: his bones, lungs, hair fiber etc. will not give you the sum toto of all that Barry is.

Quote[/b] ]It is theoretically possible that the sun will not rise on the morrow and it´s theoretical that god exists (as long as it´s definition is non-contradictory). Both is unlikely. I never spoke of certainty. That´s why I used the term rational estimation.

If you admit a theoretical possibility for God then we have no argument.

Pindar

01-01-2004, 15:48

Quote[/b] ]Moral includes evil. For the purposes of what I was defining. Could call it something else that includes good and evil codes of conduct.

I don't really understand what this is saying. To use terms like good and evil is to apply a moral rubric. Good and evil are mutually exclusive. An act may be one or the other, but not both at the same time. A code of conduct that applies moral terms cannot give equal weight to good and evil acts. The one, by definition, is superior to the other. A code of conduct that does not apply moral terminology is an amoral system. Studying the patterns of a tiger would serve as an example. Moral conclusions are not applied.

Quote[/b] ]Only those who survive say what is moral.

Does this mean that if I rape a girl and subsequently kill her I can then claim the act was justified?

Pindar

01-01-2004, 16:18

Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]Then deontologic systems are based on a Divine Source which can only be proved through circular arguments. So here, too, there is no logic neccesity to follow these rules when it doesn't suit you.

Yes, it is less arbitrary, but a theistic moral doesn't get us any nearer to a definition of morality than an atheistic one.

Basing moral dictum on a Divine appeal is not circular. If one says 'murder is wrong' and is asked why? The answer may be 'Because God says so'. While not a complex answer, this does not assume the conclusion in the premise. It does however, provide for necessity. One could respond by saying, 'you are assuming God exists' to which the believer could answer, 'yes'. An assumption is not necessarily circular.

Pindar

01-01-2004, 16:21

A Saturnus,

Quote[/b] ]Ohh, I almost forgot...

Happy birthday, A.Saturnus.

Here Here

Now get Thee to a confessional.

Pindar

01-01-2004, 16:28

Quote[/b] ]pindar the notion of god is the notion of sectarian,,,

This is incorrect. Discussing God does not require any sectarian affirmation.

BDC

01-01-2004, 20:15

You are 76% Pure
(Very interesting.)

Here's how the REST of the world breaks down, compared to you:

people less pure than you (84%)
people like you (1%)
people more pure than you (15%)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif I need a life

Ludens

01-01-2004, 20:32

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 01 2004,16:18)]
Quote[/b] ]Then deontologic systems are based on a Divine Source which can only be proved through circular arguments. So here, too, there is no logic neccesity to follow these rules when it doesn't suit you.

Yes, it is less arbitrary, but a theistic moral doesn't get us any nearer to a definition of morality than an atheistic one.

Basing moral dictum on a Divine appeal is not circular. If one says 'murder is wrong' and is asked why? The answer may be 'Because God says so'. While not a complex answer, this does not assume the conclusion in the premise. It does however, provide for necessity. One could respond by saying, 'you are assuming God exists' to which the believer could answer, 'yes'. An assumption is not necessarily circular.
I guess you misunderstood what I meant. I ment that the existence of the divine source could only be proven with a circular argument. This probably incorrect.

I'll reformulate it: deontologic systems can be based on a divine source, but the existence of this divine source can not be proven (except by invalid methods, such as circular argument).

It could off course be proven by lightning striking in the groung in front of the atheist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif , but then the question is: from which God (Christian? Muslim? Aztec?) did this warning originate. Then again one wouldn't know what would be the right base for the deontological system. One could only know for certain that God (any God) existed if there were large scale physical abnormalities in which this could be discovered. This has not happened, so any deontological system untill now has been devoid of solid base.

Agian: one cannot disprove God, one can only prove him.

Quote[/b] ]I presented a fellow I named Barry earlier in this post. A complete break down of all the parts of Barry: his bones, lungs, hair fiber etc. will not give you the sum toto of all that Barry is.
Depends upon what kind of sum you are talking about.

Papewaio

01-02-2004, 12:04

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 01 2004,23:48)]I don't really understand what this is saying. To use terms like good and evil is to apply a moral rubric. Good and evil are mutually exclusive. An act may be one or the other, but not both at the same time. A code of conduct that applies moral terms cannot give equal weight to good and evil acts.
I will come back to this.

But essentially I was saying that morals are a code of conduct and what some people see as evil others could see as good.

Also it is not impossible (though highly unlikely) that an action could be both good and evil.

Like a molesting priest who kills himself. Evil act in suicide (in some systems others suicide is good). Also a good act at the same time by removing himself from harming more children. Broad paint strokes... got to go.

A.Saturnus

01-03-2004, 02:13

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 01 2004,14:30)]Ohh, I almost forgot...

Happy birthday, A.Saturnus.
thank you

A.Saturnus

01-03-2004, 02:36

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 01 2004,15:23)]Essence reflects the larger set a particular belongs to. If we state, 'Dave is a man' and then say, 'Barry is a man' there are two distinct objects said to share a commonality. Neither Dave or Barry can claim 'man' as an exclusive trait. The common elements that allow Dave and Barry to share this status 'man' constitues the essence. The same might be said of other traits for example, gender. Therefore a given object may belong to multiple sets. In the case of Deity, the object belongs to a class all its own: existence claims and essence claims are merged.
Now, what is an essence claim?

Quote[/b] ]Presenting an absolute as a necessary and sufficient condition for being is not invalid in and of itself.
A theist would reject your first posit: 'everything needs a cause other than itself'. A triangle doesn't require an outside causality. It is by definition. Regarding temporal objects: that status, along with its attendent contingency, precludes any such object from acting as its own cause. It does not follow from that recognition that all objects are so consrained i.e. an absolute.

A triangle doesn´t need an outside causality because it does not exist. The geometric object of a triangle is an abstract entity, not a 'thing'. It has reality only as a quality of existing objects, call it 'triangleness'. The definition of a triangle cannot proof any existence claim of anything triangle-shaped. The triangle itself cannot cause anything.

Quote[/b] ]Not so. The definition of cause does not need to be so narrow. Aristotelian causality does not simply look at time, but also at what furthers the explanation of a given thing.

The point isn´t that it has to be narrow, but that this narrowness is enough. I can´t see any benefit Aristotelian causality brings to the explanation of the world.

Quote[/b] ]A formal cause does not require an appeal to intent. Rather it takes the object at hand and looks to the object's extension as a way of understanding.

The fact that the statue is more or less horse-shaped is a property, it doesn´t qualify as a cause.

Quote[/b] ]Question: Meaning exists where there is a cognitive process to comprehend it. For my printer, certain signals of the PC are meaningful, others not. Does this mean you believe your computer thinks and is therefore aware? Do you feel the same about your calculator?

Awareness is not required for meaning. My computer calculates. My brain calculates. My brain calculates only on a vastly different level. What we call consciousness is a certain data-processing software device. A computer doesn´t have it, but where ever data are processed there´s (unconscious) understanding.

Quote[/b] ]As far as assigning meaning: science can explain the how and where and processes involved in the death of a six year old girl hit by a drunk driver and killed. It cannot quantify the meaning the little girl had for the mother.

Wanna bet?
We may not have the knowledge to do it yet, but in principle the meaning is something quantifiable. Grief is a feeling, feelings are processed data, data in the brain can be quantified, therefore grief is quantifiable.

Quote[/b] ]I presented a fellow I named Barry earlier in this post. A complete break down of all the parts of Barry: his bones, lungs, hair fiber etc. will not give you the sum toto of all that Barry is.

I agree. Barry is the sum of his parts + the sum of all emergent properties.

Quote[/b] ]If you admit a theoretical possibility for God then we have no argument.

I never said I deny the theoretical possiblity for god.

Sorry, for the delay. I just came home from vacation. I´ll answer to your ethical-discussion-post from page 12 tomorrow.

A.Saturnus

01-04-2004, 20:39

Seems the thread is now slowly dying down, but I´ve promised to post an answer to you.

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 29 2003,06:30)]I believe, a revelation would be defined as experience the source of which is taken to be beyond the temporal realm. Whether this belief is correct is a separate question. Further, should the subject recieve sufficient 'proof' as to the rectitude of said revelation that does not necessitate others recognize it as such. Consequently, Moses may be on the mountain and receive Heavenly visitation X. He may further be convinced that said visitation was in fact from a Heavenly source and not simply a delusion. This does not mean the Hebrews at the foot of the mountain are required to believe Moses' claims any more than a scientist in Paris is required to simply accept an announcment from a scientist in L.A. regarding a room temperature cold-fussion discovery. Any knowledge claim should have an attendant verification mechanism. With revelation, this may be others being able to recieve some Heavenly 'proof' of their own.
Well, ok, but what would I have to do to convince others that my supernatural experiences were real? What is the right method to test the validity of knowledge claims based on revelations?

Quote[/b] ]You will have to tell me which rules based utilitarianism you are thinking of and the grounding of those rules.

The rules can vary. Utilitarism of Rules is an ethical system that judges rules instead of actions like in Utilitarism. Rules are good if they serve the wellbeing of the greatest possible group. Exceptions of the rules with the argument to serve the wellbeing are not allowed.

Quote[/b] ]Not so, a deontic system can claim a Divine source. This is typically the case with the 'Thou Shalt' principle. This is an appeal to authority, but not necessarily arbitrary.

It is arbitrary. An appeal to authority is not a logical foundation of ethics. Any deontic system is arbitrary by definition because you cannot proof any ethical system. 'Thou shalt not kill' for example is an arbitrary rule, because I could as well say 'thou shalt kill'. A divine source doesn´t change that. If you say 'we must do what god says' I can answer 'we must not do what god says'. You could of course say that acting against god´s will might bring punishment, but that isn´t an ethical argument. If you do what you do because you fear punishment, then you don´t have an ethical system. The point is that acting against god´s will is not inherently immoral.

Quote[/b] ]A moral being cannot see the system they operate under as relative. Morality places demands upon the subject over and above personal preference. For example: rape is considered an evil regardless of time or place or opportunity. Any who would defend the practice would themselves be considered morally tainted. A moral paradigm is not subject to what is fashionable.

Why not? If I like a picture, I can still imagine that others don´t like it. Ethical judgments are aesthetical judgments. Of course, I would try to make other people act according to my ethical view, for example by punishment, but that doesn´t mean I cannot see my own values on a theoretical level as relative.

Quote[/b] ]The question is not whether an atheist can be moral but whither is the compeling force. Most atheists seem to co-opt the moral edicts of the religion with which they are most familiar.

There is no compelling force or rather, the compelling force is something different than you might think. Atheists don´t have to explain their ethical system since they accept ethical relativism. No ethcial system is absolute. The theists usually try to establish an universal ethical system that is grounded on an ontology. But this is futile. From 'is' never derives an 'ought'. What atheists have to explain is why they act according to a moral code. But you don´t need any divine source to explain that. Evolution can do that too. Theist act according to their moral codes for the same reasons atheists do: because they are socialized to do so.

Quote[/b] ]I am a servant of the Secret Fire...The dark fire will not avail you...Go back to the shadow You shall not pass

First I was a spider, now a servant of the flame of Udun. Antagonizing your opponents is a way to cope with insecurity. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Pindar

01-05-2004, 02:24

Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]I guess you misunderstood what I meant. I ment that the existence of the divine source could only be proven with a circular argument. This probably incorrect.

I'll reformulate it: deontologic systems can be based on a divine source, but the existence of this divine source can not be proven (except by invalid methods, such as circular argument).

Deontic systems do not require a divine appeal. Two examples would be Kant's catergorical imperative and Levinas' face of the Other.

Even so, a Divine appeal can be based upon revelation. The sectarian particulars are a separate matter.

Quote[/b] ]Agian: one cannot disprove God, one can only prove him.

Quite, this is one of the reasons atheistic positions can be problematic given the involvement of a positive statement about a negative.

Pindar

01-05-2004, 02:43

Papewaio,

Quote[/b] ]I was saying that morals are a code of conduct and what some people see as evil others could see as good.

Different moral codes may exist. Regardless, followers of a particular system, by that very ascription, are unable to label an act with moral overtones as its opposite.

Quote[/b] ]Also it is not impossible (though highly unlikely) that an action could be both good and evil.

Like a molesting priest who kills himself. Evil act in suicide (in some systems others suicide is good). Also a good act at the same time by removing himself from harming more children. Broad paint strokes... got to go.

A deonitc model labels acts good or evil irrespective of consequence. The suicide of a bad man, judged as evil under such a system, would be seen as an evil act regardless.

A utilitarian model is problematic given the ultimate effect of a given acion remains hidden consequently, no initial moral prouncement can be given. Assuming a perspective where a judgement can be made: the moral pronouncement would be definative. No duel labeling would be possible.

Papewaio

01-05-2004, 03:40

Are the ten commandments a deonitc system?

If so then they describe situations which are contextual to when something is good or evil.

For instance it is wrong to kill unless God tells you to in which case you better do it.

----

Anyhow my main point is that social codes (moral structures) are a natural occurence and evolve just like the creatures that make up societies.

A lot of religious morals are in fact codes on how to survive in your local enviroment they are not divine inspiration, having the 'God said it' clause means a higher rate of adherence, but a matter of Darwinistic survival of various ways. The guys who dined on shellfish and pigs flesh in the desert died a lot faster then those who did not.

A way to think about it is to take the ten commandments and imagine several tribes in the same region with variations of those commandments for instant opposite stances such as 'Though shalt ignore and ignoble though parents'.

Then rank them to which you would think most likely to survive.

I would say the ones that stick closer to the ten then the opposites will do better.

Pindar

01-05-2004, 03:58

Saturnus,

Quote[/b] ]Now, what is an essence claim?

This is a simple deference toward my interlocutor who may not understand or agree with the proposition.

Quote[/b] ]A triangle doesn´t need an outside causality because it does not exist. The geometric object of a triangle is an abstract entity, not a 'thing'.

A trianlge does exist. It exists as an abstract entity. An abstract entity is a thing, a noun.

Quote[/b] ]The point isn´t that it has to be narrow, but that this narrowness is enough. I can´t see any benefit Aristotelian causality brings to the explanation of the world.

You argued that only antecedent cause exists. I have shown that is not the case. The benefit, or your inability to see any benefit, is not my concern.

Quote[/b] ]Awareness is not required for meaning. My computer calculates. My brain calculates. My brain calculates only on a vastly different level. What we call consciousness is a certain data-processing software device. A computer doesn´t have it, but where ever data are processed there´s (unconscious) understanding.

This is an amazing flurry of statements. I can only conclude from this you have not done any serious work in cognitive science and are unfamiliar with Searle's black box. Processing data does not equal understanding.

Quote[/b] ]Wanna bet?
We may not have the knowledge to do it yet, but in principle the meaning is something quantifiable. Grief is a feeling, feelings are processed data, data in the brain can be quantified, therefore grief is quantifiable.

Meaning and feeling are not the same.

Quote[/b] ]I never said I deny the theoretical possiblity for god.

Therefore, I submit the following:

You have admitted science cannot determine 'truth'.
You agree to a theoretical possibility of God.
A theoretical possibility means a rational possibility. Therefore, you may no longer argue the rational estimation is atheism given rational alternatives exist.

I think this would conclude our argument. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Papewaio

01-05-2004, 04:11

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 05 2004,11:58)]
Quote[/b] ]A triangle doesn´t need an outside causality because it does not exist. The geometric object of a triangle is an abstract entity, not a 'thing'.

A trinalge does exist. It exists as an abstract entity. An abstract entity is a thing, a noun.

Quote[/b] ]I never said I deny the theoretical possiblity for god.

You have admitted science cannot determine 'truth'.
You agree to a theoretical possiblity of God.
Well by the triangle definition God exists.

At the minimum God is an abstract entity and therefore exists.

However as no phenomena/data has been seen of God it would seem that at most God is an abstraction.

Lord Azriel

01-05-2004, 05:43

To all I recommend a book 'His Dark Materials'. Banned by some churches this book has you asking some serious questions whilst at the same time is a moving piece of literature.
It will become a classic.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/read.gif

http://www.darkmaterials.com/

Brutal DLX

01-05-2004, 09:35

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 05 2004,02:58)]Therefore, I submit the following:

You have admitted science cannot determine 'truth'.
You agree to a theoretical possibility of God.
A theoretical possibility means a rational possibility. Therefore, you may no longer argue the rational estimation is atheism given rational alternatives exist.

I think this would conclude our argument. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I would say you have a point there, Lord Pindar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, although one could argue that theoretical thinking need not be rational by default.

I still have to adress Sat concerning his last statement before he left for the holidays, but today being my first day back, I feel a little too lazy for that, however I hope to be concluding my dispute as well.

Oh, and Happy belated birthday, Saturnus

Papewaio

01-05-2004, 10:51

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 05 2004,11:58)]
Quote[/b] ]I never said I deny the theoretical possiblity for god.

Therefore, I submit the following:

You have admitted science cannot determine 'truth'.
You agree to a theoretical possibility of God.
A theoretical possibility means a rational possibility. Therefore, you may no longer argue the rational estimation is atheism given rational alternatives exist.

I think this would conclude our argument. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Pindar-Suma I much would have to have seen this before my other reply. The edit of yours is essentially the last half of the quoted statement.

Theoretical is not rational and rational is not theoretical.

Quantum theory to most people is not rational. The Uncertaintly Principle offended many peoples understanding of rational including Einstein. A theory can seem irrational yet be true.

That is the problem basing things on feelings or common knowledge, it may look right and rational but it is incorrect.

A theoretical possibility of God without any way of testing it is at best a hypothesis and at worst a null-hypothesis. The theoretical possibility is in no way a (scientific) Theory or a Law it is just an idea. Other ideas with equal claim in our world are mentioned above including my favourite of Purple Dragons, Unicorns and Nice Guys.

Nor having rational alternatives to a stance mean that the stance cannot be maintained. You can have several rational ideas to explain a situation, the most well proved rational idea would be the best stance to maintain.

Pindar

01-05-2004, 23:01

Let's see

Quote[/b] ]one could argue that theoretical thinking need not be rational by default.

and

Quote[/b] ]Theoretical is not rational and rational is not theoretical.

I must admit to being a little surprised by these statements.

This discussion has been couched within the rational tradition. As such, the views expressed have been considered to abide by rational standards and assume a rationality. I assume Saturnus' statement was meant to follow those same precepts. He will not doubt correct me if his intent was otherwise.

Now regarding the above; I would submit that that there is a distinction between saying: 'a possibility for X exists' and 'a theoretical possibility for X exists'. The former is not a rational argument, but simply a statement. The latter has a qualifier. The adjective 'theoretical' impacts the meaning of the statement. What does theoretical itself mean? As derrived from the base noun 'theory' I would submit that the meaning, at the least, involves an organized and systemic approach to knowledge claims. Further, I would agrue that the principle that underlies the organization and systemization is rationality. Consequently, a theory is part and parcel of the rational tradition and the latter statement is presenting itself a tied to the rational tradition. There are other approaches to knowledge i.e. mysticism. I would not consider a mystical approach theoretical however, given it is extra-rational. There are reasons we don't say Sufi theory or Bhaki theory.

Suggesting that theory is not rational leads one to ask for an example of a non-rational theory. Quantum theory was proposed as an example. I would argue that regardless of the discomfort some may feel or have felt over it, that does not justify a claim that quantum theory is therefore non-rational. Emotional discomforture is irrelavent to the rationality of a knowledge claim. Moreover, failure to fully understand a thing does not mean that thing therefore is not rational. It is known that quantum thought (via Heisenberg) developed under the influence of, and has parallels to, phemonenology: particularly the notion of 'intentionality'. Phenomenology is a rational system. Whether those early phemonenological influences will have meaning as dictated by a fully emergent quantum theory or not, I know of nothing within quantum thought that suggests it is non-rational. So, I put forward the question: if theory is not rational, what is an example of a non-rational theory?

Pindar

01-05-2004, 23:07

Papewaio,

Quote[/b] ]Pindar-Suma I much would have to have seen this before my other reply. The edit of yours is essentially the last half of the quoted statement.

Sorry for the trouble. I noticed you were active when I posted. By the time I had edited my piece you had put foward a reply.

Papewaio

01-06-2004, 00:53

Quote[/b] ]This discussion has been couched within the rational tradition. As such, the views expressed have been considered to abide by rational standards and assume a rationality. I assume Saturnus' statement was meant to follow those same precepts. He will not doubt correct me if his intent was otherwise.

My point was to clarify that theoritical and rational are not one and the same.

Quote[/b] ]So, I put forward the question: if theory is not rational, what is an example of a non-rational theory?

An irrational theory would be:

Because firemen are found at fires it, to reduce the number of fires you reduce the number of firemen.

A spurious relationship based on facts that creates a theory which in turn is irrational.

Pindar

01-06-2004, 02:13

Quote[/b] ]An irrational theory would be:

Because firemen are found at fires it, to reduce the number of fires you reduce the number of firemen.

A spurious relationship based on facts that creates a theory which in turn is irrational.

This is an example of an irrational position: namely a hasty induction. Irrationality is not the abscence of rationality, but the poor usage of it. I asked for an example of a 'non-rational' theory: meaning a theory outside the bounds of rationality.

Papewaio

01-06-2004, 02:19

Okay a non-rational theory would be the existence of God as there is no rational way of measuring and/or supporting such a claim.

A.Saturnus

01-06-2004, 02:20

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 05 2004,03:58)]A trianlge does exist. It exists as an abstract entity. An abstract entity is a thing, a noun.
Well, that depends what existence means. In my opinion, only what is part of the causal system can be seen as existent and in that way an abstract entity does not exist. I would actually say the term abstract entity is only usefull when you see it as opposite to an existing entity. If existence includes abstract entities, some confusing problems can arise (ie. universalia-problem).

Quote[/b] ]You argued that only antecedent cause exists. I have shown that is not the case. The benefit, or your inability to see any benefit, is not my concern.

It might be your concern to convince me. Or anyone else. The point in question is what qualifies the things you named as causes.

Quote[/b] ]This is an amazing flurry of statements. I can only conclude from this you have not done any serious work in cognitive science and are unfamiliar with Searle's black box. Processing data does not equal understanding.

You conclude wrongly. As long as you mean Searle´s chinese room thought-experiment, I´m familiar with it. The thing Searle (and probably you) is unfamiliar with is cognitive neurosciences. Have I done serious work in cognitive science? When serious work means a diploma or a master, no I haven´t done such. Not yet How about you?

Quote[/b] ]Meaning and feeling are not the same

Maybe you´re so kind and tell us what meaning exactly means according to you? (don´t be surprised if I think different http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )

Quote[/b] ]You have admitted science cannot determine 'truth'.
You agree to a theoretical possibility of God.
A theoretical possibility means a rational possibility. Therefore, you may no longer argue the rational estimation is atheism given rational alternatives exist.

From my point of view this is an invalid argument. Maybe we have a little misunderstanding here. A rational possibility and a rational estimation are not the same thing. I don´t know if this helps, but let me explain it in terms of statistics. It happens that we´re interested to estimate one variable from another one. There are staistical methods to define the so-called regression coefficients in such a way that we get the optimal linear estimation. This estimation is optimal because the average failure of estimation is minimal. That means the chance of being wrong with the estimation is the lowest. It is still possible that other estimations are closer to the truth than the found optimal one. Simply because we don´t have all the data. But in the situation of uncertainty, it is still sensible to choose the optimal estimation. Of course you could try to find the optimal non-linear estimation, but that´s another story.
The point I want to make is that we have to guess. And of all possiblities I call the one with the lowest average failure of estimation the rational estimation. And that is atheism.

Papewaio

01-06-2004, 03:26

Disproving God/Zeus or Purple dragons and other ideas may not be possible. But not being able to disprove something does not make it true either.

A Hypothesis is not as vaunted as a Theory and a Theory is not as vaunted as a Law.

A Hypothesis is an idea.

A Theory is a Hypothesis that has been tested. Testing requires the gathering of data typically.

A Law in science is something that has undergone extreme scrutiny and stands up within its boundary conditions with extreme confidence.

God at most is a hypothesis waiting on some data.

Even Evolution out ranks it for sheer weight of data.

Brutal DLX

01-06-2004, 10:52

So, we need clarification on what a theory is and what a hypothesis is, otherwise we are attaching different meanings to it.

A hypothesis is an unproven imputation or assumption if you will, if we look at the greek meaning of hypotithenai, the unproven bit is a logical extension we add since the mere uttering of a hypothesis doesn't include any proof of its veracity yet.
It says nothing about rationality or logic included in that assumption, therefore, it is possible to have a non-rational or irrational hypothesis.

What is a theory by definition of the word?
theoria -> theorein means looking at something, examining, researching or contemplating, in a wider sense.
Now I went and looked up the word in a dictionary and it gives 3 variations:

(1) scientific, purely mind-based way of looking at things,
scientific thinking
(2) a system consisting of hypotheses, raising a theory
(3) disclosure of lawful contiguities,
explanation of facts.

I think #2 is the most basic one, but if we take 1 or 3, then indeed we must not leave the rational, logical argumentation as is required by science and Pindar made a good point concerning Saturnus' statements.

Note that nothing is said per se about the veracity of the theory, so I could theoretically (heh) raise a wrong theory which would still be a theory when disproven, only a wrong one. A non-rational theory would be the example Saturnus gave when talking to me about pixies being responsible for all gravity related effects. It is against ratio to assume this. Also if we claim there is a god and with all his properties (being almighty, transcedent etc) we cannot grasp him fully with our thinking, then god would be a non-rational concept, and any theory about him would be non-rational because it is based on him. However, that would not mean that non-rational things don't exist, but they are a subject science is not prepared to examine as of right now, which was my point all along, and I think Pindar's too.

Shigawire

01-06-2004, 11:31

As all these posts are too much for me to read, I'll just answer the initial question.

Quote[/b] ]2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).

So, how do I motivate myself to be good according to our morals and standards WITHOUT the aid of the omnipotent imaginary friend?

Well, if one has an above-average IQ, one should have started to see the direct and indirect side-effects of one's actions. The folly of one's misdeeds, and the rewards for one's deeds. One ought to see these consequences, as linked to eachother in a fine intertwined mesh. Usually people learn that doing generally nasty things will have grave consequences both short-term and long-term. In particular social-wise. One will not NEED any stronger incentives. Especially not such incentives as the Damnation or such vague/cloudy fantasy nightmares about the so-called judgement day. This incentive seems to me primarily absurd, as the only proof of the Judgement Day is in a book, which has been written with such ambiguity that SOME people might percieve it as prophecy. Secondarily, because this Judgement-Day/Damnation is to me basically as real as Cinderella and the 7 dwarves.. seriously. I view the contents of the bible as quite historic, but with wild overtures of exaggeration and some wild fantasy, just as Homer's Illiad is, in which he writes about the Trojan war.

If some people need false/invented consequences to maintain ethics/morale, that frightens me. It means they don't really bother to heed or consider the common things, but consistently think in aircastles.

What is required is a good upbringing (parents etc), a good social network to influence yourself with (what kind of friends) etc.. For me, my morals are welded into me..

Humans can't just constantly abdicate all responsibility to the imaginary megafriend. We humans need to take responsibility for our self, no imaginary force can do anything about that. Believing in this force is an easy way out, as it's basically the same as denouncing responsibility for many of our OWN responsibilities.

Brutal DLX

01-06-2004, 11:36

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 20 2003,17:25)]

Quote[/b] ]Whether it can be overcome by statistics is a methodological question and can be argued in a statistical debate. After the feastdays, I´ll post an inquiry of the usefullness of certain statistical procedures. Since you have an interest in statistical methodology, I´ll expect your comment on it.
Well, if you call psychology a science is of course a question of definition. My reasons for doing it are:
1) it assembles empirical evidence
2) it assembles evidence in methodical way
3) the process of assembling evidence is transparent and repeatable

Just like other scientists, psychologists test their hypotheses on evidence. It is nature itself that speaks in favour or against a theory.

Yes, what I am missing is the step 4, the verification of any theories you make. How can you truly test them, what ways of verification do you have. Personally I think this is all based on an unproven assumption about how the mind works. If you cannot prove the veracity of this, then you cannot take it as the base for conducting your science. I am sure, certain experiments and tests you run are scientific, and even natural scientific through and through, but at some point you run into trouble, and this is because your field of science isn't clearly defined, so I am having a hard time adding it to other natural sciences.

Quote[/b] ]You have doubts that science is better than dogmatism? That´s rather strange for a scientist.
The scientists have no problem with the pixies finally showing up, it´s the dogmatists that are unable to change their minds.

No, but I have doubts that science will never evolve into dogmatism once all findings about a particular phenomenon are supposedly made. True scientists would never have a problem with the pixies, I agree. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]Wait, you confuse two things here. What I said is out of reach of science are the phenomenons that cannot be explained. But god isn´t a phenomenon (at least none that cannot be explained), god is a theory. He´s like the pixies. A concept not witnessed posed to explain the phenomenal world. Just like we don´t need the pixies to explain gravity, we don´t need god to explain the world. The rational estimation is that there are no pixies and the rational estimation is that god doesn´t exist. If one of them shows up, we have to rethink this estimation.

God is not a theory, but rather a hypothesis to rational thinking people. His effects and properties can be described in theories. You are right, in your most probable rational estimation, you don't need him to explain the world, but what is your rational estimation about how the world came into being? And don't say big bang, as even prior to that there has been something. We have the hypothesis of god, and then we have nothing much besides it to explain how it all came about (and I am not talking about the genesis stuff in the bible). So there is also a rational estimation that an almighty being set the stone rolling in the first place. A transcedent being that is part of our world and not. It is as good a guess as any about something that is starting to elude our mindly grasp.
God is not there so the people may understand the world around them, that is up to us.

Quote[/b] ]Logic doesn´t require yes/no answers, at least not on every level. Not even formal logic does that always. But rationality must be the base of our discussion, otherwise it would... well, it wouldn´t be a discussion. Intuition is a tool to come up with good ideas. It´s not in contradiction with logic, but it must leave the argumentation to it. You can find a point with intuition, but not prove it (or show that it´s likely - to avoid yes/no dualisms).
It´s interesting to hear the perspective of others, but to be honest, I really prefer not just to hear it but to discuss it on a rational basis with people who are able to do so like Pindar or yourself.

Yes, I was a bit exaggerating when talking about yes/no answers, but the point is in purely logical discussions you will not go very far if the subject of discussion cannot be fully explained by logic, or you will just exchange corrections of the other participant's logical strings, which may also be quite short if they made no mistakes. Speculation, that means discussion not necessarily made with logical thinking at its base, will not be detrimental to the cause of sharing opinions or extending one's horizons. And some of those points made through intuition or speculation can't yet be discussed or proven with logics. There may be laws that we don't know of right now, so we cannot cite them, there may be laws too complex to understand for us (chaos), or maybe no laws for some things at all (also chaos http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif). It distinguishes you that you WANT to explain everything, that you want to grasp it with your ratio, that is the spirit of a good scientist, but even for them there are borders that may or may not be broken through. You have to work with what you have and try to get more, but not stop and dismiss everything that you can't explain in a rational manner right now.

Ludens

01-06-2004, 13:06

Brutal DLX, I am glad to see you back in form. Although I don't activily participate in this discussion (having run out of arguments. I am now lurking to see how this discussion is going to end, because I have nothing left to say at this point), I am still waiting for a reply in our discussion about science / pseudoscience (page 10). If you think that to far back, just say so and then when can at least close it properly.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Pindar

01-06-2004, 20:53

Quote[/b] ]Disproving God/Zeus...may not be possible. But not being able to disprove something does not make it true either.

Exactly You have just made my arument. The notion of God is beyond the scientific realm. Ultimately, and abscent the Divine revealing himself, it is a question of faith.

Teutonic Knight

01-06-2004, 21:07

Quote[/b] ]Duraz_asks, Teutonic Knight,

I appreciate you are trying to contribute to the discussion, but the existence of God and the thruth of (passages of) the Bible are not under discussion.
This discussion has drifted away from the starting point of morality, to the rationality of the atheist claim (translated: is not-believing in God the most logical option?).

I am intellectually incapable of contributing to this topic, a quality I was try to tell Duraz that is mutual between the two of us. My post was merely a correction of ignorance.

As far as faith is concerned all I can say is that I believe and what I believe makes sense to me. Isn't that really all that matters anyway? I believe, you don't, it's all good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Ludens

01-06-2004, 21:16

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Jan. 06 2004,21:07)]I am intellectually incapable of contributing to this topic, a quality I was try to tell Duraz that is mutual between the two of us. My post was merely a correction of ignorance.
I felt just like that after A.Saturnus and Pindar got started. But it is less difficult then it looks, the main problems are the difficult words. However, this discussion stretches out over 15 pages now, so it almost impossible for newcomers to join and say something new about the subject.

Quote[/b] ]As far as faith is concerned all I can say is that I believe and what I believe makes sense to me. Isn't that really all that matters anyway? I believe, you don't, it's all good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The point under discussion is that I DON'T believe and wheter THAT makes sense http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Papewaio

01-06-2004, 21:16

Atheisim is not illogical in at least one situation.

Atheisim being that you cannot find nor believe in a higher being.

If God exists he would be an Atheist.

Teutonic Knight

01-06-2004, 21:23

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 06 2004,15:16)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Jan. 06 2004,21:07)]I am intellectually incapable of contributing to this topic, a quality I was try to tell Duraz that is mutual between the two of us. My post was merely a correction of ignorance.
I felt just like that after A.Saturnus and Pindar got started. But it is less difficult then it looks, the main problems are the difficult words. However, this discussion stretches out over 15 pages now, so it almost impossible for newcomers to join and say something new about the subject.

Quote[/b] ]As far as faith is concerned all I can say is that I believe and what I believe makes sense to me. Isn't that really all that matters anyway? I believe, you don't, it's all good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The point under discussion is that I DON'T believe and wheter THAT makes sense http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Quote[/b] ]The point under discussion is that I DON'T believe and wheter THAT makes sense http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

But is that necessary when talking baout faith?

Pindar

01-06-2004, 21:33

Quote[/b] ]Well, that depends what existence means. In my opinion, only what is part of the causal system can be seen as existent and in that way an abstract entity does not exist.

Is the causal system itself subject to cause?

Quote[/b] ]The point in question is what qualifies the things you named as causes.

Phenomenal analysis.

Quote[/b] ]You conclude wrongly. As long as you mean Searle´s chinese room thought-experiment, I´m familiar with it. The thing Searle (and probably you) is unfamiliar with is cognitive neurosciences. Have I done serious work in cognitive science? When serious work means a diploma or a master, no I haven´t done such. Not yet How about you?

Perhaps I can put it this way. While cognitive science was not my emphasis I have worked with Jerry Fodor and been involved in seminars with the likes of Patricia Churchland, Steven Stich, and John Searle to name a few. Though I don't consider this particularly relevant.

I don't recall anything within cognative neurosciences that can respond to Searle's black box critique.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe you´re so kind and tell us what meaning exactly means according to you?

In simple terms, meaning is the assigning of significance to some particular X by the subject.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe we have a little misunderstanding here. A rational possibility and a rational estimation are not the same thing.

This is a false distinction. A rational possibility recognizes that the opposite of the subject's understanding, however unlikely, may in fact, be the case. A rational estimation emphasizes the subject's understanding while not discounting the possibility it could be otherwise. In both case, the common thread is the recognition it could be otherwise. Recognizing a possible contrary conclusion to what is estimated to be the case means one is unable to make catergorical statements like:

the rational estimate is atheism.

Pindar

01-06-2004, 21:53

Master Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]I felt just like that after A.Saturnus and Pindar got started. But it is less difficult then it looks, the main problems are the difficult words.

Good to hear from you. I think you are right. The real trick is being able to move beyond one's professed view in lieu of better arguments. Too many get caught in an irrational stubberness and loyalty to position and consequently stop learning.

Pindar

01-06-2004, 22:06

Quote[/b] ]Atheisim being that you cannot find nor believe in a higher being.

If God exists he would be an Atheist.

This is a confusion based upon the choice of a comparative instead of a superlative. Under say the standard Judeo-Christian cosmology, an angel is higher than a man. Deity could believe in an angel without any self reference.

As far as the highest being is concerned: there is nothing within the use of highest that disqualifies self referential thought. Further, given Deity understands logic: the mere fact Divine thought occurs presupposes a Divine thinker. Thus God is not an atheist.

Ludens

01-06-2004, 22:52

Teutonic Knight,

What I wanted to say was: what we are discussing here is whether the atheists position makes sense, or at least more sense than the theist position.

Though being an atheist myself, I must admit that Pindar has advanced a very strong point by saying that there must be a 'first cause' which is self-causing. (the philosophy of this 'first cause' is called ontology. The problem with ontology is that for whatever 'ultimate cause' you can find, someone else can always ask the question What caused that?)
The problem with ateism is that atheists have nothing that could be the first cause. We have physical laws, but these are caused by... Theist can (and do) place God in this position of first cause (for a more accurate version of this problem, look up the discussion between Pindar and me back at page 10).

This is a strong argument against atheism, but I still do not find it enough reason to start believing in God.
Now I am lurking in this discussion to see which way it goes, trying to find an error in Pindar's reasoning. The best I can come up with sofar (but it is not very good, I admit) is that the first cause doesn't have to be God. [God could mean here the Jewish / Christian / Islamic God here, but also any god]. The first cause could also be something else. I need more evidence before I accept the God-hypothesis.

And that leads to another discussion.
It's a neverending story.
But that's part of the fun.

Ludens

01-06-2004, 23:02

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 06 2004,21:53)]Master Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]I felt just like that after A.Saturnus and Pindar got started. But it is less difficult then it looks, the main problems are the difficult words.

Good to hear from you. I think you are right. The real trick is being able to move beyond one's professed view in lieu of better arguments. Too many get caught in an irrational stubberness and loyalty to position and consequently stop learning.
True.
To understand the discussion, you must know the words.
To actually discuss, you must be able to admit you are wrong.

I stopped contributing to the discussion because I am not yet able to admit I am wrong. There are still some things that require discussion. I will start posting again when I've found out what those things are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

(I stated one in my reply to Teutonic Knight)

Papewaio

01-07-2004, 00:29

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 07 2004,06:06)]
Quote[/b] ]Atheisim being that you cannot find nor believe in a higher being.

If God exists he would be an Atheist.

This is a confusion based upon the choice of a comparative instead of a superlative. Under say the standard Judeo-Christian cosmology, an angel is higher than a man. Deity could believe in an angel without any self reference.

As far as the highest being is concerned: there is nothing within the use of highest that disqualifies self referential thought. Further, given Deity understands logic: the mere fact Divine thought occurs presupposes a Divine thinker. Thus God is not an atheist.
No what I am saying is an atheist does not believe in a power/being above themselves.

If God is the highest being then he is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher then himself.

Also this causes a paradox how can God who by definition is the highest definition disprove the existence of any being higher then himself.

a) If he can't he is not omnipotent.
b) If he could logically prove or disprove it. Then what stops man being able to do likewise?

Pindar

01-07-2004, 02:20

Quote[/b] ]No what I am saying is an atheist does not believe in a power/being above themselves.

If God is the highest being then he is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher then himself.

Also this causes a paradox how can God who by definition is the highest definition disprove the existence of any being higher then himself.

a) If he can't he is not omnipotent.
b) If he could logically prove or disprove it. Then what stops man being able to do likewise?

I don't think you understood what I wrote. Let me put it this way. Atheism is not the abscence of belief in a higher being. Atheists can believe in extra-terrestials (who are typically presented by believers as a more advanced being in all ways). Those who do not believe in extra-terrestials are not then atheists because of that disbelief. Atheism has to do with God. The word is Greek in origin: the prefix 'a' is a negation while the base is taken from the Greek 'theos' which means God. Thus, the actual meaning is 'no God'. If such a Being exists, there is nothing that precludes his beliving in his own existence.

In any case, I don't think you are putting this forward as a serious view. Regardless, our argument has ended based on your earlier statement. So, God's speed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

chris

01-07-2004, 02:31

We Christians consider God as being omni everything, we need no further proof we have found something that makes enough sense to stake our lives on.

The biggest argument I have, is what the results are on a person, after he/she has accepted Christ. Most of them are arguable among all religions, and most religions claim the same affects. We, though, aren't talking about other religions, or even Christianity by name, just God or not. Consider then, all the positive effects that religion has on people. Generally, if they follow it as closely as it calls on them to, they are very happy. What do atheist have to make them happy? Material things for one, the other, is the not-so-material- things. Things like family, people you love. Some love nature itself, just seeing a sunset is enought o keep them living. Whatever your reason is, it can be taken from you. Your family, your life, even your sunsets. Natural desasters and other things, can completely ruin what you stake your life, and happiness in. theists belive in God, most that their God is omni etherything as i said before. We stake our life and happiness in that God, at least I do. This God has never been PROVEN wrong. Evolution is officially a theory, not a fact. No one can officially say God does not exsist. BUT noone can PROVE He is real either. When such limited beings as us consider our, as well as the Universe' origins, we are merely guessing. We werent there, we just dont know. We can throw all of our theorems, postualtes, laws, and our gueses into proving somehting, but even theist cannot prove anything. Some very convincing arguments have been presented, but at the end of the day, its all specualtaion. I belive in my God, becuase I have found enough proof for my taste. Its all circumstantional, but its enough for me. I step out and belive in what I cannot see. The atheist, some say, belive nothing. This is unfair until one alters it. Atheists dont belive in God, there very definition explains them. They choose to belive in what they can explain with our minds. No matter what happened to begin our earth, it was amazing, thats not arguable. How can we think we can understand somehting so great? I applaud all who try, but theist say that my God created it. We don't understand it, we can barely explain it, but thats the whole point.

Like i said, at the end of the day, its all faith. Faith in science, or faith in God.

Papewaio

01-07-2004, 05:09

Faith relies on believing in something in the absence of data.

Science is the understanding of something through data.

You can be a scientist and have faith. They are not mutally exclusive nor should the same terms be used.

The difference between science and faith is more like perpindicular axes rather then opposite ends of an axis.

I enjoy this universe around us. The discovery of how it works and the strangeness of it.

If there is a God he has made a very exciting puzzle. If there is not a God then it is still a very exciting puzzle.

Regardless of the Authour or lack thereof. My joy and happiness come through challenges, discovery and exploration.

I also enjoy playing the devils advocate at times http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.

Shigawire

01-07-2004, 09:52

There is a school of thought in some christian communities, as well as atheist communities. I am referring to the arrogant pity-syndrome. One accuses the other of missing out on something great by the other not taking part of what the first one is taking part of. And vice versa. Some christians will have arrogant pity for atheists for not being able to enjoy life as much as themselves (supposedly), and some atheists will have an arrogant pity for the christian's supposed collective madness.

To have a beneficial discussion, we can't have people stuck in this school of thought. It breeds no further progress in these discussions. Both parties have a lot to contribute with.

Now, as to the happy feeling that some christians enjoy by their faith. There has been some scientific and neurologic studies of this. I saw a program on BBC Prime about this. They tested people who have previously experienced religious experiences. They found a part of the brain which became activated by showing images of that person's religion (cross, etc). The stimulation wasn extremely faint by just showing these symbols, so it needed to be more decisive to create whole experiences. Further, they tried to stimulate this region in the brain by the use of something or other (electric signals or some other wavelength). The persons had the stimulating cap on their heads, and as the experiment progressed, eventually they got some experience which made them weep (I saw tears running down the cheeks under the cap). They say they saw a light, and some other strange artifacts.. It was tested on a bunch of people. So you have a stimuli, and a reasonably reproducable response in the brain.
A catholic bishop was also showing his support for this experiment as well, as he would of course believe this is how God gives people their experiences. This bishop is an example of how vehemently a religious person will hold onto his religion.

I am not convinced that all this philosophical discussion regarding God will lead anywhere. Too much emphasis is placed on irrelevant semantical discos, such as clauses and first clauses - would God be an Atheist, etc.

Taking the step from unbeliever to believer is a huge step, and is not taken lightly without the basis of data. Indeed, I think that MERE WORDS could not possibly convince an Atheist/Agnostic to believe in something so lifechanging. That would mean there's a huge defect in our abilities to reason. If there was a book which had all the magical words needed to change the will of a human, well, we wouldn't need any logical discussion. And that book would be considered a WMD :P

Only fragile minds and weak minds can be easily convinced to something that affects their perception of reality. So weak people would change sides TOO quickly (atheist->religious, or religious->atheist). One who sticks to his own side unless faced with overwhelming proof is of stronger will.
People who get indoctrinated to suicide-bombers are people who have been bent towards one line of thinking all their lives. Of course there could also be an inherent need to die, from depression - which could result from lack of proper mental institutions. Suicide bombers get indoctrinated using words. Repeated words, words that appeal to the emotional, words that sting, and perhaps a little physical discipline. More importantly, you indoctrinate someone from an early age. As long as you impress certain bios defaults in their fresh minds, you can make them believe almost anything. This is very different from child to child of course. This needs to be nurtured over time, and will gain a very strong rooting in one's psyche later on - upon which the master/parent will not need to enforce the religion upon the person any more, as it becomes a self-maintaining aspect of that person's mind - just as much as his own ego.

Me personally, the only reasonable higher power I can and do believe in, is that in this vast universe, there MUST be other races of intelligent life. Consider the extreme diversity of life on our own little planet, then consider the extreme resiliance of these lifeforms in the most extreme places of our planet, it just shows life can thrive in the most hellish place in the universe. The riddle is, how does it start? Only theories exist regarding this.
There could be millions of intelligent lifeforms. I consider it very possible that some Extra-Terrestials could be so advanced that they don't consider us worthy of communication. If such powerful beings do exist, we could presume they can reach vast distances in shorter time than the speed of light. And thus, they would already have known about us for a long long time. Perhaps we are an amusement park to them? A drive-through safari perhaps? Or perhaps a garden to water now and then?

You don't need to be religious to have the healthy and humble awe for our surroundings. We have all the reason in the world to be awed by our vast and incredible universe. The mystery of the universe is god enough to me. And I believe that instead of holding a dogmatic view, and by listening to my own doubt, and by acknowledging the fact that I don't know what the universe is, is a healthy route to learn the mysteries of our universe. Of course, we will most likely never learn it. It's the eternal wheel of life.

Brutal DLX

01-07-2004, 10:21

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 06 2004,12:06)]Brutal DLX, I am glad to see you back in form. Although I don't activily participate in this discussion (having run out of arguments. I am now lurking to see how this discussion is going to end, because I have nothing left to say at this point), I am still waiting for a reply in our discussion about science / pseudoscience (page 10). If you think that to far back, just say so and then when can at least close it properly.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Oh, I totally forgot we had unfinished business, master Ludens, I shall browse to page 10 and reply, but perhaps not today as I might have to get busy any minute here. But I think the death of this thread is nigh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Ludens

01-07-2004, 11:51

Quote[/b] (chris @ Jan. 07 2004,02:31)]
Hello Chris,

Welcome back to the discussion.

Quote[/b] ]The biggest argument I have, is what the results are on a person, after he/she has accepted Christ. Most of them are arguable among all religions, and most religions claim the same affects. We, though, aren't talking about other religions, or even Christianity by name, just God or not. Consider then, all the positive effects that religion has on people. Generally, if they follow it as closely as it calls on them to, they are very happy. What do atheist have to make them happy? Material things for one, the other, is the not-so-material- things. Things like family, people you love. Some love nature itself, just seeing a sunset is enought o keep them living. Whatever your reason is, it can be taken from you. Your family, your life, even your sunsets. Natural desasters and other things, can completely ruin what you stake your life, and happiness in. theists belive in God, most that their God is omni etherything as i said before. We stake our life and happiness in that God, at least I do.
I think you are confusing 'evidence for God' with 'reasons to believe in God'. It is the same as 'if you don't believe in God, but he exist, you will go to hell'. It shows why it would be good to have a God, or why you should believe in God, but NOT whether God exists.

Quote[/b] ]This God has never been PROVEN wrong. Evolution is officially a theory, not a fact. No one can officially say God does not exsist. BUT noone can PROVE He is real either.
I do not agree with that last statement, and neither do you yourself.

Quote[/b] ]I belive in my God, becuase I have found enough proof for my taste. Its all circumstantional, but its enough for me. I step out and belive in what I cannot see.
So there IS proof for God.

Quote[/b] ]Like i said, at the end of the day, its all faith. Faith in science, or faith in God.
Heaven ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) help us on the day that people start believing in Science like they believe in God
Science is just an explanation, but God has Meaning.

Ludens

01-07-2004, 12:01

Shigawire,

You are entirely right if you say that this kind of discussions can be ruined by the pity-school of thought (both believers as well as atheist are responsible for this). But the discussion is not about the (dis-) merits of God or even God's existence. We are talking about whether the atheist point of view makes sense.

Quote[/b] ]I am not convinced that all this philosophical discussion regarding God will lead anywhere. Too much emphasis is placed on irrelevant semantical discos, such as clauses and first clauses - would God be an Atheist, etc.
We might not be able to prove or disprove God's existence, but Pindar's argument has drawn my attention to a large hole in what I thought to be a waterthight conviction about the nature of the universe. I have to rebuild my view on the universe.
Regarding MERE WORDS, it is not about the words, but about their meaning. Papewaio's argument was just tinkering with the definition of atheism. That were indeed MERE WORDS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

As for extra terrestials, I...
:stops himself:
:deactivates rant-MODE:
...will not discuss that here.

Ludens

Ludens

01-07-2004, 12:03

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 07 2004,10:21)]Oh, I totally forgot we had unfinished business, master Ludens, I shall browse to page 10 and reply, but perhaps not today as I might have to get busy any minute here. But I think the death of this thread is nigh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Glad to hear it, freiherr Brutal DLX. However, I don't think the end of this thread is nigh. The injection of new particapant may have watered down the argument, but it has added to the life.

Brutal DLX

01-07-2004, 13:38

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Dec. 15 2003,15:47)]

Quote[/b] ]How would you call something that pretends to be science, but isn't, then? Sheldrake himself stated that it is not scientifically provable, so science should stay out of it. Yet the whole morfogentic fields theory has an aura of science around it. Even the name suggest it is a scientific theory.

I wouldn't call it pseudo science as that reeks of the pretending and the aura you personally but not objectively perceive, yet contains the implication of charlatanry, which it clearly is not. If we wouldn't attach such a negative meaning to the term pseudo-science, then I would have no problem with calling it that way.
In light of what I wrote earlier about theories, I would call it a couple of hypotheses arranged using a scientific (rational) ductus to form a theory. Whether or not it can be proven by current science is not of relevance to the theory itself or as to how we should refer to it.
Such theories work to stimulate the exisiting science to expand, to try out new methods, to gain more knowledge. Therefore coming up with theories is part of science, however the content of a theory is new knowledge or the guess of what a thing may be like, and that is more the subject of philosophy. So, call it a philosophical approach expressed in natural-scientific terms.

Quote[/b] ]1. Concerning the dogma: I admit that resembling it to a dogma was a bit far fetched, but I'd like to represent my reasoning to that point. If it is NOT provable by science (not now and not in the future), but is represented as a theory/hypothesis, then it sends, to a greater or lesser extent (lesser in the case of Sheldrake, I admit) the message: Man (with capital M) cannot hope to understand this. Something that falls out of the scope of Man, is magical or religious (from this point of view those two are about the same). Things that concern either magic or religion, are to be left alone by science: it would be sacrilege (spoiling the religous worth of the object) or spoiling the magic. Man is not ment to know this.
Hands off Hands off This should be left alone. This is certain
Because were a scientist to discover it was normal, the magic is spoiled, it is no miracle. But this reasoning that is what I ment with dogmatism in this discussion. Miracles should be left alone, science is not allowed to explain them. So you are right when you say that in this particular case the term dogmatism was incorrect. Sheldrake doesn't say that science shouldn't explain it, he says that science cannot explain it.

I think that every person has their personal understanding/interpretation when reading a claim or theory, and the message this one appears to send to you may not be the same to others. At least not to me. Therefore I advise caution when making such generalising statements part of your argumentation.
Sheldrake comes forth with an explanation where there had not been one before. He says science cannot explain it right now, but it might do so. He even invites other scientists to consider looking at it and trying to dis-/prove it. To that end, he formulates his theory about fields. So if one day we find a way to measure those fields, we will move closer to prove or disprove his theories in a scientific way. No oohs and ahhs there, no magic, just a hypothesis that is not yet verifiable by science. There have always been obstacles on the road of science, but the belief of progress is pushign us forward, but eventually we have to realise that knowledge is indeed finite. Once we know everything about anything, science is done. But until then, we have to be careful our belief in science is not blown out of proportion.

Quote[/b] ]2. As for my ideas about pseudo-science: remember that I am but a humble student who doesn't even study philosofy, so if my theory cannot stand criticism, it is just because it is my first attempt at one. With moving, I didn't mean that science is continually changing, but just that it is growing. Basic evolutiontheory has been left unchanged since Darwin, but there have been at least two great battles about details (this is simplification, it were actually quite big issues, but Darwins observations still stand). Physics and farmacolgy might still use the same basic formulas as forty years ago, but there are a lot more advanced formulas.
Compare this to a pseudo-science: what are the changes in homeopathics? None since Hahnemann developed it. The only things that were added were pre-scription- and diagnosis-methods.
Is Sheldrake busy refining his theory? No, since it is already complete. The morfogentic field is the beginning and the end. What caused the field, how can we apply this knowledge? Obvious but unanswered questions. This is what separates scientist from pseudo-scientist. A scientist is continually looking for new questions and answers. A pseudo-scientist restricts himself to the answers, because he already has all the questions. His theory explains everything, his theory is the beginning and the end.

Sheldrake theory explains a observations, but quite a lot of those observations could be explained otherwise. This would make it redundant, and since it has no other base except for those observations, we could do just as well without it.

Yes, we can do without it, but do we want to? As you said science is moving, and part of that movement is the reevaluation of older findings as well as the quest for new perspectives or new way of explanations. In this example, we can explain some observations, but we cannot explain them as a whole, nobody before (at least nobody we know about) has put all those observations together and observed similarities, pondered about the why and how and finally came up with a theory. This is a big part of science that you are missing. The verification is one of the final steps, a part of science, not only one.
Sheldrake has refined his theory, but of course big changes cannot be made until a confirming or contradicting observation is made, until new measuring methods are developed and more people are working on it. And ultimately,
science will stop, in general as well as in a specific field, this is also a truth, however far removed that time will be from us. So, maybe there are no changes in homeopathics because there is simply nothing to add or nobody is trying anymore? Progress is not the complete definition of science, imho, the ultimate gain of knowledge by logical means it is, just each step brings us closer to this goal.

Quote[/b] ]Of course a lot of men laughed. But another lot of men didn't and started thinking. Science is a social bussiness and scientist aren't perfect. This also means that my seperation between science and pseudo-science is more of an ideal than is should like. But because there a so many scientist, there is always something willing to kick against the legs of the current paradigm. But ever heard of a pseudo-scientist revoke his ideas?

No, I didn't, but that is due lack ok knowledge about the pseudo-scientists. But I venture a guess that it has happened before, if we are still talking about pseudo-scientists who put forth serious theories and not charlatans.
I, too, think your seperation between science and pseudo-science is an ideal based on your personal perception of anything that is not readily provable.
In the end, we will see what works and what not, so those questions will answer themselves, only that perhaps you and I won't live to see it anymore.

Shigawire

01-07-2004, 14:31

So this discussion is about whether or not Atheism makes sense? First of all.. Who said the universe makes sense at all? The whole universe is ludicrous, us being here and thinking selfconsciously is bizarre But what fun we can have in this universe What's fun? Enjoying things you enjoy? Or just chemicals in your brain that you want to attain more of.

I think that this smells of a challenge - a challenge that can go both ways. For me being an atheis/agnostic, I acknowledge that we humans don't know a zilch of the mysteries of the universe. But a God-believing person knows that God exists, without collaborating data.
Who are the theologists to question atheism in making sense? Theology is the most speculative that can come to mind. IF there ever was a line of thought that was humble and doubting by nature, it is atheism. And by first accepting that one understands nothing, that makes sense to me. To religious people, it may seem the opposite of humble when atheists don't believe in God. Of course, because religious people percieve God as a living being that transcends all life in the universe (it certainly transcends everything in convenient vagueness), and not believing in him seems an insult from some religious people's perspective. It seems almost like a rude suggestion to say he doesn't exist.

Atheists don't believe that there is a God. Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the extreme possibility - given collaborating data. To question God, we must first define God. And by my definition, it is something so utterly vague and baseless that I don't and can't have any relation to it what so ever - nor can I efficiently define it. Just as I can't have any relation with things that are metaphysical , since by their very definition, they are not of this world, so why bother wasting brain-energy on something we can't even grasp - when we have a whole universe we can have a relation with? Aristoteles made a huge impact on both the basis for modern theology and modern science. I would challenge people who say they can efficiently/objectively explore science like scientists should while simultaneously staying true to their religion. The point of contention for me, in this issue, is that by being religious, you will see the universe through a whole different set of glasses. And I am in doubt as to how objective they can become. A cloud nebulae forming after a sun goes nova will be twisted into religious things such as behold, further proof of God's magnificence.

It is true that science CAN co-exist with religion, but not as independantly as two irrespective axes. It seems to me that these 2 axes float into eachother on various points of conflict - frequently.
Religion has never played a supporting role for the furtherance of science - except whenever the scientific discovery could be compatible (twisted) to religious thought. It has in fact, on many occasions been a burden and barrier for free scientific thinking. You could look at the stars, as long as they were holes in a carpet. You could sail the earth, as long as you didn't reach the edge, and as long as the earth remained planar. You couldn't freely excercise advanced studies of medicine, unless you were a witch.
Our experiences as humans is that religion has often had an assuming nature. It has often invented facts without proper data. Such as the nature of our planet, the universe, etc..
This totally unscientific approach is probably why we had a relatively slow period of science in the dark ages.
Today, we have no problem with people doing the untraditional. In fact, it's expected and encouraged. Religion plays a less extreme role in our western culture today. Still, to me, religion appears like a dormant danger. Like a hibernating version of the extremist religion it once was, waiting for the right conditions again for another dark age to set in. They do get passed down from generation to generation. It's only a matter of time - of which there is plenty.

In my opinion, the burden of evidence lies solely on the shoulders of believers worldwide. I'm just saying convince us with all your efforts. Because we WILL believe if given data that truly makes God's existence reasonable. But as soon as this challenge emerges, it will usually be said that it's only a matter of faith. Well, then we're back to square one. Do you think that.. whatever convinced you about God, will also convince me? The Mullahs must prove without a doubt that Allah is the creator, the Rabbis must prove that their God is the creator, etc..

But we aren't talking about whether or not creationism makes sense here, are we? In either case, I'll just interject with a little digression here. The creationists usually argue that everything on this planet works so fluently and everything seems so deliberate. Bananas can be conveniently split at the top, berries can be easily picked in the forests, we can breath out our nostrils - though not always with ease, but the all-mighty God has designed fingers for us to make the whole process so much simpler. Notice how your fingers are aptly molded to pick away respiratory barriers in your nostrils.
Thus, the argument posed by one creationist Ray Comfort is:
If there's a build-ing, there must be a build-er. By the same token, only a fool can't notice the convenience with which our maker has designed our world for us.

Ray Comfort should look more into the process of evolution. Remember Occham's Razor. Life, as everything else, evolves along the path of least resistance. Lack of resistance is the very epitomy of life which co-exists.
A fruit will of course procreate by the way of its eater's digestive system. Thusly, it has survived for eons, and found its own niche in the world. If a lifeform finds a niche in the world, there is very little chance that it will evolve to something different, since it can easily survive without the random factors proposed by mutations. As all vegetables and fruit have. Now they are nurtured in synthetic gardens - and will probably be kept in limbo for the rest of their existences. Apes haven't evolved to anything similar to humans because they haven't faced the same hardships as we have wrought upon eachother through millions of years of tribal wars of total annihilation.
Let's hypothetically say we know how Gorillas and Chimpanzees evolved. The chimpanzees and gorillas evolved from our common ancestors. Then, let's say one of the apes utilized his muscles greatly, another didn't and kept doing what he always did. Then let's suppose two social groupings start to form based on these 2 pack-leaders. So-called possé. One seperates from the other and continue to live the way they've always lived. The other group follows their muscular leader and begins a life of heavy-duty activity and starts to eat more protein-rich food. Keep in mind that all these apes are individually different, and are never genetically identical. Their minute genetical differences is what can make a big difference far off into the future.

Now, lets skip by 100 generations. Something has happened to the muscular possé compared to the other possé, though it's faint. In the muscular possé, weakness has become unacceptable, and the weak ones slowly leave their pack and die alone, OR they rejoin the other old possé. Natural selection in its prime.
Eventually, during thousands of generations, something starts to happen. The difference between the old possé and the new possé will begin to become remarkable. Muscular genes will become stronger on average in this possé, as the weak ones are cast out - and strong ones mate with eachother. Eventually you will have the Gorilla and Chimpanzee, side by side, very different, yet still similar. Eventually you may even have sub-groups of the Gorilla-ancestors who may have spawned yet ANOTHER species. This was all hypothetical, since I have no genetical expertise in exotic animals. But to me it makes sense, and is a handy simplification of the theory of evolution. Which usually sound a bit undetailed. Never underestimate the social aspect of evolution. Here we are trespassing the boundaries of social-anthropology.

To believe someone/something has created all of this is to invent. It is a way to simplify things that are more complicated. Instead of seeing the complexity of it as a whole. For it is very very complex. And my feeble attempt to present the evolution does it no credit. This process is infinitely more detailed. And if indeed this theory of evolution is how life has evolved, it's important to remember that it occurs on such huge scales of time, that it's difficult to get it all into perspective.

Ludens

01-07-2004, 18:56

Brutal DLX,

Quote[/b] ]I, too, think your seperation between science and pseudo-science is an ideal based on your personal perception of anything that is not readily provable.

Quote[/b] ]we have to be careful our belief in science is not blown out of proportion.
Indeed, I have been too agressive and got carried away by my dislike of pseudo-science in general.
I apologize for this and try again.

1. Regarding Sheldrake
The existence of Sheldrake's morfogenetic fields cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, science cannot do anything with them. It is out of the reach of science, it is not scientiffical.

Quote[/b] ]Whether or not it can be proven by current science is not of relevance to the theory itself or as to how we should refer to it.
True, but it cannot be proven by science of any time. These morfogenetic fields are just so vague you can take them anywhere.

Quote[/b] ]Sheldrake comes forth with an explanation where there had not been one before.
I don't think so. He just observes identical patters in different locations. His explanation is that there is a link between those locations in form of his morfogenetic field. But it might just be coincidence, or there could be ANOTHER link (in the example of the birds opening milk bottles, the link could be observation behavoir or the introdcution of weaker, cheaper seals for milk bottles).
Again, it is too vague. You can find a hunderd examples to confirm your believe in this phenomenon, yet there is no example which could prove you wrong (Popper).

Quote[/b] ]He even invites other scientists to consider looking at it and trying to dis-/prove it.
Now that is interesting, because this way it looks like it is scientiffical. But science cannot say anything about it if it cannot be proven or disproven. So it is made to look like science (this is what I ment with aura), but it isn't: it is pseudo-science.
(I do not mean that Sheldrake is a charlatan. Most pseudo-scientist believe what they say. But such a thing doesn't make it science.)

2 Regarding pseudo-science

Quote[/b] ]Sheldrake has refined his theory, but of course big changes cannot be made until a confirming or contradicting observation is made
But there can be no contradicting observations with his theory.

Quote[/b] ]But I venture a guess that it has happened before, if we are still talking about pseudo-scientists who put forth serious theories and not charlatans.
If a pseudo-scientist adapts his theory to new facts, what is the difference between him and a scientist? It is the rigidity, not thruth, that makes something pseudo-science (Popper again). This is what I meant to express with my hypothesis.
(With adapting I do not mean using a trick to do away contradicting evidence, like creatonism did with it Great Flood-theories. A more moderne equivalent would be a psychologist who does away the contradicting observations by arguing that the subject knew there were absorved and changed their behavior. If that is the case, how can that psychologist know it isn't the same with the supporting observations? Popper had a name for this, but I've forgotten it.)

Quote[/b] ]In the end, we will see what works and what not, so those questions will answer themselves, only that perhaps you and I won't live to see it anymore.
Amen to that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Teutonic Knight

01-07-2004, 19:14

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 06 2004,16:52)]Teutonic Knight,

What I wanted to say was: what we are discussing here is whether the atheists position makes sense, or at least more sense than the theist position.

Though being an atheist myself, I must admit that Pindar has advanced a very strong point by saying that there must be a 'first cause' which is self-causing. (the philosophy of this 'first cause' is called ontology. The problem with ontology is that for whatever 'ultimate cause' you can find, someone else can always ask the question What caused that?)
The problem with ateism is that atheists have nothing that could be the first cause. We have physical laws, but these are caused by... Theist can (and do) place God in this position of first cause (for a more accurate version of this problem, look up the discussion between Pindar and me back at page 10).

This is a strong argument against atheism, but I still do not find it enough reason to start believing in God.
Now I am lurking in this discussion to see which way it goes, trying to find an error in Pindar's reasoning. The best I can come up with sofar (but it is not very good, I admit) is that the first cause doesn't have to be God. [God could mean here the Jewish / Christian / Islamic God here, but also any god]. The first cause could also be something else. I need more evidence before I accept the God-hypothesis.

And that leads to another discussion.
It's a neverending story.
But that's part of the fun.
exactly my point.

I said that awhile ago but someone pulled out Stephen Hawking and told me that creation didn't need to be starting by some other force, because the universe was turned upside-down or something as such....

Even the most logical conclusion cannot cause belief or disbelief in God. Mainly because faith is just that, faith.

A.Saturnus

01-07-2004, 21:26

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 06 2004,11:36)]Yes, what I am missing is the step 4, the verification of any theories you make. How can you truly test them, what ways of verification do you have. Personally I think this is all based on an unproven assumption about how the mind works. If you cannot prove the veracity of this, then you cannot take it as the base for conducting your science. I am sure, certain experiments and tests you run are scientific, and even natural scientific through and through, but at some point you run into trouble, and this is because your field of science isn't clearly defined, so I am having a hard time adding it to other natural sciences.
A step 4? We call a theory verified when the data in support of it is great enough so nobody has serious doubts left. There is no extra verification-process apart from making a theory, gather evidence and look if the evidence supports your theory. And that can be done in psychology.
I could as well say physics are based on an unproven assumption how the world works. No finding in psychology is definite, just like in physics. That´s what´s making it a science.

Quote[/b] ]but what is your rational estimation about how the world came into being?

A serious question I will address in the next answer to Pindar.

Quote[/b] ]It distinguishes you that you WANT to explain everything, that you want to grasp it with your ratio, that is the spirit of a good scientist, but even for them there are borders that may or may not be broken through. You have to work with what you have and try to get more, but not stop and dismiss everything that you can't explain in a rational manner right now.

I accept that there are things I cannot explain (yet), but god is not such a thing. God is explanans, not explanandum.

A.Saturnus

01-07-2004, 22:00

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 06 2004,21:33)]Is the causal system itself subject to cause?
A very serious question. The causal system cannot be its own cause, so there must be a cause outside of it. But any cause would be part of the causal system. This is Parmenides problem in modern shape. I can only see two possible answers:
- there is no causality
- the assumption that something cannot come from nothing is false

Since I´m fond of causality, I favour the second answer.

Quote[/b] ]Phenomenal analysis.

Maybe we don´t understand the same thing as causality. IMO causality is the principle that if you know the current state of a closed system and all laws affecting the system, you can predict any future state of the system. Determinism is the view that this principle is entirely true for the world. The things you called causes are not necessary to predict a future state from the current state.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I can put it this way. While cognitive science was not my emphasis I have worked with Jerry Fodor and been involved in seminars with the likes of Patricia Churchland, Steven Stich, and John Searle to name a few. Though I don't consider this particularly relevant.

I don't recall anything within cognative neurosciences that can respond to Searle's black box critique.

Well, saying that Searle isn´t familiar with neuroscience is probably too strong. It´s only that all of these you name are philosophers, not scientists. They usually have quite some insight into fields of their interests, but are prone to overlook details. I want to name Daniel Dennett as a prominent example.
However, what I said isn´t in contradiction to what Searle says anyway. Note that Searle´s black box or Chinese room wasn´t an argument against cognitive physicalism, only against the strong-AI-program of Dennett and his comrads. Searle claims that what he calls causal power is needed to generate understanding and that a computer therefore cannot have understanding. I think he´s partly right, but unfortunately (since I like him) it can be proven that he´s also partly wrong.
The brain is a machine. The neurons it consists of, are information transport or process units. So, whatever happens in the brain is information processing. This includes consciousness. I know this sounds confusing and counter-intuitive, but the more grip one has on neurophysiology the more plausible it is. I recommand the books of Antonio Damasio.
When you deny that consciousness is information processing, you must also deny that it is generated by the brain, which would be - as we have seen before in this thread - unscientifical.

Quote[/b] ]This is a false distinction. A rational possibility recognizes that the opposite of the subject's understanding, however unlikely, may in fact, be the case. A rational estimation emphasizes the subject's understanding while not discounting the possibility it could be otherwise. In both case, the common thread is the recognition it could be otherwise. Recognizing a possible contrary conclusion to what is estimated to be the case means one is unable to make catergorical statements like:

the rational estimate is atheism.

I don´t think you understood my argument. You can make different estimations, but only one of this estimations has the lowest average failure. I call this estimation the rational one, because it is rational to choose it and not the others. In the same way as it is rational not to expect you´ll win the lottery.

Papewaio

01-07-2004, 23:44

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 07 2004,20:01)]We might not be able to prove or disprove God's existence, but Pindar's argument has drawn my attention to a large hole in what I thought to be a waterthight conviction about the nature of the universe. I have to rebuild my view on the universe.
Regarding MERE WORDS, it is not about the words, but about their meaning. Papewaio's argument was just tinkering with the definition of atheism. That were indeed MERE WORDS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .
I should use smaller words and longer paragraphs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.

Yes I am tinkering with words and making a joke however I am also trying to define an atheisim that goes beyond being someone who does not believe in God.

It is one that is more universal. Otherwise all Hindu's are atheists. Otherwise all we are debating is a Christain definition and hardly a universal truth.

A more general and embracing definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in higher powers (then themselves) in the universe because the there is no proof beyound faith.

Be the higher powers be nature spirits, crystals, God, god, gods, Goddesses, Zeus, Angels, The Force etc. It is not a denial of aliens, however it is a denial of worshiping something that does not have proof that it exists.

Papewaio

01-07-2004, 23:56

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 08 2004,06:00)]
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 06 2004,21:33)]Is the causal system itself subject to cause?
A very serious question. The causal system cannot be its own cause, so there must be a cause outside of it. But any cause would be part of the causal system. This is Parmenides problem in modern shape. I can only see two possible answers:
- there is no causality
- the assumption that something cannot come from nothing is false

Since I´m fond of causality, I favour the second answer.

Quote[/b] ]Phenomenal analysis.

Maybe we don´t understand the same thing as causality. IMO causality is the principle that if you know the current state of a closed system and all laws affecting the system, you can predict any future state of the system. Determinism is the view that this principle is entirely true for the world. The things you called causes are not necessary to predict a future state from the current state.
In particular:

Quote[/b] ] IMO causality is the principle that if you know the current state of a closed system and all laws affecting the system, you can predict any future state of the system.

You do realise that even in a closed system, knowing all the laws/theories that we cannot predict the future state of that system with 100% accuracy. Schrodingers Cat...

Also the ability of particles to form out of vacuum is known as well.

Brutal DLX

01-08-2004, 12:05

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 07 2004,17:56)]

Quote[/b] ]1. Regarding Sheldrake
The existence of Sheldrake's morfogenetic fields cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, science cannot do anything with them. It is out of the reach of science, it is not scientiffical.

Why? It may be measurable with instruments we don't possess as of right now, but in spite of this, the question of whether it is proven or not doesn't make the ductus any less scientifical. The same could be said about Saturnus' field of work, yet he claims it to be a science as well, whereas I just cede that he is using scientifical means to tackle it.

Quote[/b] ]True, but it cannot be proven by science of any time. These morfogenetic fields are just so vague you can take them anywhere.
I don't think so. He just observes identical patters in different locations. His explanation is that there is a link between those locations in form of his morfogenetic field. But it might just be coincidence, or there could be ANOTHER link (in the example of the birds opening milk bottles, the link could be observation behavoir or the introdcution of weaker, cheaper seals for milk bottles).
Again, it is too vague. You can find a hunderd examples to confirm your believe in this phenomenon, yet there is no example which could prove you wrong (Popper).
But there can be no contradicting observations with his theory.

I don't think it is vague, it is as exact as is possible to formulate at this time, given that it covers whole fields of other sciences and a plethora of phenomena. I believe this happens with all things when put in the big picture, akin to Heisenberg's theory, the more closely you look at one bit, the more exactly you can describe it, the farther away you step, you comprehend more about its causalities and interactions, but you may not see the details of it anymore so clearly. Keep in mind that Sheldrake IS a scientist, but formulating a new theory which isn't proven nor disproven yet (afaik). The exactness you seem to require is not possible (and maybe never will) at this stage, however vague it may be to you or others, it explains the surprising similarities of morphogenesis, even in human societies, to an amazing extent.

Quote[/b] ]If a pseudo-scientist adapts his theory to new facts, what is the difference between him and a scientist? It is the rigidity, not thruth, that makes something pseudo-science (Popper again). This is what I meant to express with my hypothesis.
(With adapting I do not mean using a trick to do away contradicting evidence, like creatonism did with it Great Flood-theories. A more moderne equivalent would be a psychologist who does away the contradicting observations by arguing that the subject knew there were absorved and changed their behavior. If that is the case, how can that psychologist know it isn't the same with the supporting observations? Popper had a name for this, but I've forgotten it.)

There is no difference between a pseudo scientist and a scientist, that is just an arbitrary disctintion some of us make. You could say a pseudo-scientist has a very narrow field of work, that doesn't require further studying once nobody brings new evidence or adaptions to bear anymore.
In one of his books, Sheldrake suggests several experiments to verify or disprve his theories, this isn't rigid behaviour at all, so let's stay on the fact based side of things.
If however, somebody doesn't change his theories or admits they can't be right in light of contradicting evidence, then this smells of rigidity, dogmatism and un-scientifical behaviour, I agree.

Brutal DLX

01-08-2004, 12:40

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 07 2004,20:26)]
Oh Saturnus, now you are really treading on thin ice.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]A step 4? We call a theory verified when the data in support of it is great enough so nobody has serious doubts left. There is no extra verification-process apart from making a theory, gather evidence and look if the evidence supports your theory. And that can be done in psychology.
I could as well say physics are based on an unproven assumption how the world works. No finding in psychology is definite, just like in physics. That´s what´s making it a science.

Yes, a step 4, a conclusive proof not only based on repeatability and statistics, that would make it natural scientific, which you claim it to be.

A science isn't made by recognition of lack of definite findings, on the contrary, science strives to formulate definite findings or theories. You are partially right however, that physics is based on primary observations or assumptions not on how the world works, but how parts of it work and interact, from which physicists hope to conclude how the world works in its entirety, but it deals with the world outside of our mind, and it built step by step on observations, causality theories and logic. Your peers, however, as I said times and times again deal with the mind itself to a greater extent, you are using your observation tool on itself which is not acceptable to me on a scientific level without saying that this will result in a study process that is partially different from science as we define it.

Quote[/b] ]A serious question I will address in the next answer to Pindar.
I fail to see it being adressed in your next answer to Pindar, however, I wish to comment on that one as well:

Quote[/b] ]Maybe we don´t understand the same thing as causality. IMO causality is the principle that if you know the current state of a closed system and all laws affecting the system, you can predict any future state of the system. Determinism is the view that this principle is entirely true for the world. The things you called causes are not necessary to predict a future state from the current state.

This is a serious problem, people working with different definitions of the same terms. Here is what I mean when I say causality and determinism:
Causality by its most basic definition is the connection between cause and effect, and the involvement between both.
Determinism, however, is the philosophical hypothesis that the human will is not free, but determined by outside influences.
It seems you have contructed your own interpretations of those terms and argue from this level instead of a commonly accepted one, which is now confusing our discussion.

Quote[/b] ]When you deny that consciousness is information processing, you must also deny that it is generated by the brain, which would be - as we have seen before in this thread - unscientifical.

I beg to differ. We have not seen that in this thread before. Rather, we have found that one could doubt the theory about the brain you just described and still be able to formulate a coherent and logical hypothesis, which isn't an un-scientific process at all.

altti

01-08-2004, 13:58

I just happened to visit planet Blop not long a go and amazingly there was a heated discussion concerning moral. Although it does very little to do with the direction this debate has gone to it does more so with the original questions, so bear(¿) with me a few moments.

Inhabitants of Blop had quite similar living conditions like us: they had same kinds of transportation like us for instance. The main difference was that they were worms. Big worms only slightly smaller than an average person. And their birth was quite different from ours: their female worms carried from 20 to 30 little worms(fetuses if you will), who were compelled to eat up their own mother since it was the only way out. In addition their mother's flesh was the right kind of food to ensure the healthy kind of development for the little ones. But through the wonders of modern science they had developed a way to spare the mothers; a surgery and meat enriched with right kind of enzymes.

This was a thing that caused and outrage amongst the religious conservatives. They hated the selfish mothers who chose this kind of unnatural way of birth declining their children a healthy start for their lives. Often they quoted their sacred book, the hible: And from this day forth all women shall have a life eternal through their daughters. Religious liberals suggested tentitavely that it could also mean the inheritance of some qualities thus not requiring death of the mothers. Also they pointed out that studies indicated that the replacement meat caused no harm and that the worms benefited mentally from having a relationship with their mother. Scientist added fuel to the fire by claiming that the perception of the 'selfish' mothers as being evil was only due to the morals derived from their own biology, a remnant that had nothing to do with the modern day.

Well all and all i had a pleasent trip - i'm just sad that my memory card got corrupted and i lost all my holiday fotos. All the things that happened on my vacation has been written down by four different authors so all you sceptics can now rest assured: i really was there. By the way, all aliens speak finnish not english as the television wants us to believe, but i guess i that's another story for another time.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

altti

01-08-2004, 14:51

I've taken my pills now and my serious personality is slowly taking over. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

In this discussion there has been claimed that our morals are the result of religion (christian religion to be exact). Not true. Christian religion spread in it's early years without violence replacing polytheism. In polytheism the gods schemed their own petty plots and high morals of christianity appealed to the sense of people's morality that was already there.

The advancements in science leave less to do for god(s) every year. We don't need god any more to bring sun up in the morning. We don't need god to make the seasons change. After each and every day god has less to do. There was an opinion on this topic that there's no harm to play it safe, if you live up to the code of your religion you've lived a good life and don't risk your chances for a good afterlife. Well here's a news flash for you: which religion got it right or what about if the Right Religion isn't invented yet? And doesn't it bother you that the religions are always invented and the invention of a good religion newer goes unrewarded even in this life(as if there is going to be another http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )?

This claim is purely an opinion. If a group of children were isolated from the enviroment and were tought well science but also to use their own heads, to reason. Let's say this isolation would continue to the age of 25. Then different religions would be introduced to them. Then two different lists would be made: a list of those adopting some of these religions and a list of those who were considered to be gullible by a group of people who were allowed some kind of interaction with them. Now my claim is that these lists would be a exact match. We have stopped believing in most fairy tales. I just don't get it why a majority still believes in some of them. Is it brainwashing, sense of insecurity or what? (if i offended someone i'm sorry)

Ludens

01-08-2004, 19:42

Hello Altti and Altti http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif ,

Welcome to the Org. It's is good that you are joining the discussion and your account of your holiday was a good laugh. Unfortunatly, over 15 pages and several months, the discussion has rather drifted away. We are now discussing the rationality of the atheist claim (translated: is the claim that there is no God the most rational? Before (if) you answer to that, try reading a few pages back, as to evade frequently used arguments which are already discussed).

Brutal DLX,
I wanted to answer your mail thoroughly, but the new episode in the Alexander the great-series I'm posting in the Mead Hall took up all my concentration. I cannot write for any length of time without typing phalanx...

See? That's what I mean http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Perhaps I can find more time and concentration tomorrow.

A.Saturnus

01-09-2004, 00:09

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 08 2004,12:40)]Oh Saturnus, now you are really treading on thin ice.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I´m confident that I will be measured and be found of being exactly the right weight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]Yes, a step 4, a conclusive proof not only based on repeatability and statistics, that would make it natural scientific, which you claim it to be.

A conclusive proof http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Brutal, I must ask you know: are you of the opinion that the natural sciences can discover truth??

Quote[/b] ]Your peers, however, as I said times and times again deal with the mind itself to a greater extent, you are using your observation tool on itself which is not acceptable to me on a scientific level without saying that this will result in a study process that is partially different from science as we define it.

And as I said before, we´re not using the observation tool on itself. We are using empirical data. If you think that the content of the data makes interpretation of it unreliable, please explain why. And please use more than vague hints.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote
A serious question I will address in the next answer to Pindar.

I fail to see it being adressed in your next answer to Pindar,
I thought that my elaboration on the problem of the cause for causal system was an answer to your question. Not the case?

Quote[/b] ]Causality by its most basic definition is the connection between cause and effect, and the involvement between both.

The problem with this definition is that it´s too vague. What does connection mean? The definition I used was a generalization of Hume´s definition.

Quote[/b] ]Determinism, however, is the philosophical hypothesis that the human will is not free, but determined by outside influences.
It seems you have contructed your own interpretations of those terms and argue from this level instead of a commonly accepted one, which is now confusing our discussion.

My philosophical dictionary conferms my use of the term. Your definition is a specification in the context of the free will debate.

Quote[/b] ]I beg to differ. We have not seen that in this thread before. Rather, we have found that one could doubt the theory about the brain you just described and still be able to formulate a coherent and logical hypothesis, which isn't an un-scientific process at all.

We have seen nothing like this. This is what I said on page 11:

Quote[/b] ]No findings about the brain prove that the mind must be attached to the matter. And no finding ever will, because you could always make the same claim. That the matter only is relay, but not the cause of the mind. I can also claim gravity is caused by little pixies with magic wands and immunize my claim against any test you could present. That´s just the difference between science and belief. If a certain belief is silly is of course open to everyone´s own judgement, but there´s no doubt that the sciencetific explanation is more rational.

You have certainly not presented a coherent and logical - and therefore scientifical - hypothesis to counter cognitive physicalism. You only said something about that pixies could also be part of a scientific theory - which is out of question. By the lack of a counterargument, I though you accepted my position on this. But of course, you can still post this coherent and logical alternative hypothesis to rival cognitive physicalism you claim exists. Good luck.

Brutal DLX

01-09-2004, 13:18

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 08 2004,18:42)]Brutal DLX,
I wanted to answer your mail thoroughly, but the new episode in the Alexander the great-series I'm posting in the Mead Hall took up all my concentration. I cannot write for any length of time without typing phalanx...
No problem, master Ludens, it's weekend anyway. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Brutal DLX

01-09-2004, 13:52

Quote[/b] ]I´m confident that I will be measured and be found of being exactly the right weight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

You old villain You have been weighed and found wanting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Accusing me of vagueness but using vagueness himself. Heh.

Quote[/b] ]A conclusive proof http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Brutal, I must ask you know: are you of the opinion that the natural sciences can discover truth??

Insofar as truth equals understanding of the workings of the world around us. What, did you think scientists are in it for the money?
Ok, you may have a point then. Heh.
However, I'm not speaking about truth but about proof not based on statistics.

Quote[/b] ]And as I said before, we´re not using the observation tool on itself. We are using empirical data. If you think that the content of the data makes interpretation of it unreliable, please explain why. And please use more than vague hints.

I am saying that the means of that data aquisition and processing is subject or cause to the phenomenons you study. Is that so hard to understand? As such I have a problem with the reliability of the findings. This is as exact as I can get without you referring me to volumes upon volumes on your scientific study procedures. I am talking about my personal opinion, which I am trying to get across to you. I don't want you to change your ways, just a basic understanding of what my concern is. But it doesn't seem possible, so let's just agree to disagree.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with this definition is that it´s too vague. What does connection mean? The definition I used was a generalization of Hume´s definition.
My philosophical dictionary conferms my use of the term. Your definition is a specification in the context of the free will debate.

It's vague so it can be adjusted to more specific problems, which you did, but i cannot go confrom with this definition of yours as it is too strict and in my opinion slightly misses the actual point of causality, which is to explain the connection, not to be able to predict the future state of things. That is what we try to use it for.
As for the determinism, by my dictionary the one I gave is the one used in Ethics, though I admit ethics, natural scientific world view and theological oen overlapp in thsi topic. However, the natural scientific definition includes, at least in my books, also the inner-mind experiences and exercition of will (seelischen erlebnisse und willenshandlungen) and that wasn't acceptable to me for natural sciences. We can assume a continues causal chain of all incidents in the physical world, which is the premise for physics, but if we stretch it further to incorporate everything, even abstract acts, I must refrain from discussing our subject based on that.

Quote[/b] ]I thought that my elaboration on the problem of the cause for causal system was an answer to your question. Not the case?

Not really. It was an answer to Pindar's question not to mine, or am I to assume that you choose the world came about from nothing because that is my favoured choice because I believe in causality and the paradoxon it gives in this matter as an answer? Certainly much more scientific in its argumentation than other beliefs, heh. So please elaborate a little more on how you imagine it to have happened in detail and don't be so vague. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]No findings about the brain prove that the mind must be attached to the matter. And no finding ever will, because you could always make the same claim. That the matter only is relay, but not the cause of the mind. I can also claim gravity is caused by little pixies with magic wands and immunize my claim against any test you could present. That´s just the difference between science and belief. If a certain belief is silly is of course open to everyone´s own judgement, but there´s no doubt that the sciencetific explanation is more rational.

You have certainly not presented a coherent and logical - and therefore scientifical - hypothesis to counter cognitive physicalism. You only said something about that pixies could also be part of a scientific theory - which is out of question. By the lack of a counterargument, I though you accepted my position on this. But of course, you can still post this coherent and logical alternative hypothesis to rival cognitive physicalism you claim exists. Good luck.

I have certainly given you a hypothesis that is explaining the workings of the mind independently of the matter that will explain the whole subject as well as yours. Then you chose not to comment on my questions concerning the counter-example you tried to give, but instead started to go on about beliefs and pixies. So, in response to your quote I refer you to my post you based yoru qoute on:
Note that is is not work but a discussion during leisure time and it is getting to the point where I actually have to elaborate my whole hypothesis in grand detail which you know is hardly possible for me unless I start studying this matter more intensely, whereas you sit back and quote people who all did the hard work before. I am sure with a little effort you can realise the implications of the alternate hypothesis I have given and see that it is not a silly belief. Good luck. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]Yes, this is a good example. But it is not really focussing on the thought process, as an independent thing that is unaffected in itself, but can receive input and output channeled by the brain. We could say that by damage of this specific area one input line to the mind from the physical world is disrupted, the conscious part of the mind doesn't get the information about what it sees, but another channel(s) is still open (or maybe the same one, as from your example it isn't clear if that part is damaged or completely destroyed), so an image is sent that gets too distorted for the conscious mind to analyse, or maybe doesn't reach it at all, but the feed to the purely reactionary, subconscious level of the mind is not affected. Of course I would need to know more, like is the person moving normally although claiming to be blind, do they have normal reactions/reflexes? You say the report is handled by other brain regions, so what does this region actually do that you have found out? How far can you analyse it with getting proper feedback from the outsider as well as the one you conduct the study on? It is tricky, but it can be explained by my theory as well.
Yes, I treat the theories equal and make a choice in uncertainty, I don't go by probability here until the probability for my theory stands at exactly 0%. This is due to the unexactness of the whole issue.
And once again, your PC analogy isn't matching, but illustrating the problem at least. I would not say that such a claim is silly, as it certainly isn't disprovable so it has to be given some precious probability. The data processing matrix that a specific program creates could as well resonate outside of the 4dimensional space that we know about, and maybe there is a dimension where probabilities are weighed, knowledge and data processed and results determined, and if one switches that PC off, the mark that this programme created there could still exist and work until it gets connected to our PC again and be given new input. It sounds strange, but not silly.
However, my take is that it is most reasonable to accept whatever theory suits you best and then use your PC without wasting further thought on it until this issue becomes a problem or you can't sleep over it. Until then, I will enjoy my fine MTW campaign, knowing it will wait for me in transcedent RAM or on my HD until I invoke it again.

Ludens

01-10-2004, 20:27

Brutal DLX,

From your replies to both me and A.Saturnus I gathered that you consides vagueness (even if you don't actually think of it as 'vagueness' ) to be a scientiffical virtue. Let me show you that this is not the case.

A hypothesis which his vague cannot be cannot predict anything (that why it is vague), it has to be interpreted (changed) to do so. And this is a very nasty pseudo-scientiffical trick: one can praise the hypothesis for right predictions, but if the hypothesis is wrong, it is just because of wrong interpretation. So, you can NEVER disprove this hypothesis. You cannot find one error in it, the error will aways be in the interpretation, not the hypothesis.

That is why a hypothesis should not be vague. It should be able to predict something without interpretation.

What does Sheldrake's theory predict? Nothing. You cannot prove that it is wrong because it predicts nothing. It just explains things afterwards.
So I'm very curious whether the experiments you mentioned which could proves Sheldrake's theory, include ONE experiment which could disprove it.

Whether it is proven or not does (theoretically) make a difference in scientiffical status. But whether it CAN BE proven does.

ThePeach

01-11-2004, 06:52

Sometimes I think that I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him. Damnation is a very strong personal motivator; the rest of time is a long time to spend in extreme agony. But then I think of all the evil in the world, all the wars and inequality and greed and so on, and all of the killing and suffering that has been done in God's name, and I think that if God existed the Devil defeated him a long time ago.

My sense of morality comes from what my parents taught me and what I later decided I thought was right and wrong. I suppose that there is some religious influence as my mom is a devoted christian, but outside of christmas and easter my parents never forced me to go to church.

A big problem that I have with christianity is that I strongly believe that you can still be a good person without belief in God, but according to the church if you don't believe in God it doesn't matter what you do, you go to hell. I can't see that as true no matter how hard I try.

Sorry, I didn't really answer the question there, did I? I got sidetracked I guess.

ThePeach

katar

01-11-2004, 07:11

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I didn't really answer the question there, did I? I got sidetracked I guess.

i think you did as well as anyone else, given the importance and difficulty of the question.

Quote[/b] ]Damnation is a very strong personal motivator;

if god can only get us to worship it through fear, then it isn`t really worth worshipping it at all.

if you are a good person and have led a good life, but get dumpted because you don`t follow a god, then all i have to say is that any such god will never be worthy of my respect or belief.

p.s. welcome to the forum ThePeach. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

A.Saturnus

01-11-2004, 21:01

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Jan. 07 2004,23:56)]You do realise that even in a closed system, knowing all the laws/theories that we cannot predict the future state of that system with 100% accuracy. Schrodingers Cat...
Indeed, that´s what physicists say. So I think we can say that the current scientifical consensus is that determinism (in strictest sense) is not true. I think the discussion in how far this affects causality would lead us too far. However, it could also be claimed that determinism is a philosophical principle that physics cannot disprove (because behind every chaos may be a higher order).

A.Saturnus

01-11-2004, 21:48

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 09 2004,13:52)]You old villain You have been weighed and found wanting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Accusing me of vagueness but using vagueness himself. Heh.
Vagueness is only dishonest when you refuse to be more precise upon asking.

Quote[/b] ]Insofar as truth equals understanding of the workings of the world around us. What, did you think scientists are in it for the money?
Ok, you may have a point then. Heh.
However, I'm not speaking about truth but about proof not based on statistics.

Good, I feared for a moment you were a naive realist. But what do you have against statistics? It is true, most evidence (though not all) in psychology is statistical. But statistics are also essential in biology and I doubt there aren´t experiments in physics that include statistics. Would you call all of this unreliable?

Quote[/b] ]I am saying that the means of that data aquisition and processing is subject or cause to the phenomenons you study. Is that so hard to understand? As such I have a problem with the reliability of the findings. This is as exact as I can get without you referring me to volumes upon volumes on your scientific study procedures. I am talking about my personal opinion, which I am trying to get across to you. I don't want you to change your ways, just a basic understanding of what my concern is. But it doesn't seem possible, so let's just agree to disagree.

Ok, ok, as I said before, you can have of personal opinion whatever you want. So let´s say I understand your concern but disagree because I have more insight into the exact methodology. We agree to disagree, while - of course - I´m right and you´re wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]It's vague so it can be adjusted to more specific problems, which you did, but i cannot go confrom with this definition of yours as it is too strict and in my opinion slightly misses the actual point of causality, which is to explain the connection, not to be able to predict the future state of things. That is what we try to use it for.

Well it´s vagueness makes it difficult to discuss about because we might understand different things by it. That´s why Hume tried to find a more precise definition. His point is also that any connection between cause and effect beyond contigencey is actually an empty concept. He argues that a concept of causality that only contains contigencey and nothing else is all that is needed.

Quote[/b] ]As for the determinism, by my dictionary the one I gave is the one used in Ethics

Sure, but the context in which I used the word wasn´t ethics.

Quote[/b] ]Not really. It was an answer to Pindar's question not to mine, or am I to assume that you choose the world came about from nothing because that is my favoured choice because I believe in causality and the paradoxon it gives in this matter as an answer? Certainly much more scientific in its argumentation than other beliefs, heh. So please elaborate a little more on how you imagine it to have happened in detail and don't be so vague.

Ah, this is then what you mean with vagueness on my side. Ok, well, yes indeed, I think that the world came from nothing. The reason to think so is because it´s an answer to Parmenides´ problem. If you can propose another one I didn´t already refute in this thread, you have my attention. BTW, from a quote Pape posted lately, it seemed to me that Steven Hawking has a similar view.
The reason I don´t give up causality instead is that I´m physiologically not in state to do that consequently, just like you, all other people and even such things as the spine of a dog. (ok, vague again, I admit it, but ask and you shall learn http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

Quote[/b] ]I have certainly given you a hypothesis that is explaining the workings of the mind independently of the matter that will explain the whole subject as well as yours. Then you chose not to comment on my questions concerning the counter-example you tried to give, but instead started to go on about beliefs and pixies. So, in response to your quote I refer you to my post you based yoru qoute on:
Note that is is not work but a discussion during leisure time and it is getting to the point where I actually have to elaborate my whole hypothesis in grand detail which you know is hardly possible for me unless I start studying this matter more intensely, whereas you sit back and quote people who all did the hard work before. I am sure with a little effort you can realise the implications of the alternate hypothesis I have given and see that it is not a silly belief. Good luck.

Well, surely it requires quite some time on your side and I understand it when you don´t go into detail, but sorry, when you challenge the foundations of a whole science, you have quite something to explain.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, this is a good example. But it is not really focussing on the thought process, as an independent thing that is unaffected in itself, but can receive input and output channeled by the brain. We could say that by damage of this specific area one input line to the mind from the physical world is disrupted, the conscious part of the mind doesn't get the information about what it sees, but another channel(s) is still open (or maybe the same one, as from your example it isn't clear if that part is damaged or completely destroyed), so an image is sent that gets too distorted for the conscious mind to analyse, or maybe doesn't reach it at all, but the feed to the purely reactionary, subconscious level of the mind is not affected. Of course I would need to know more, like is the person moving normally although claiming to be blind, do they have normal reactions/reflexes? You say the report is handled by other brain regions, so what does this region actually do that you have found out? How far can you analyse it with getting proper feedback from the outsider as well as the one you conduct the study on? It is tricky, but it can be explained by my theory as well.
Yes, I treat the theories equal and make a choice in uncertainty, I don't go by probability here until the probability for my theory stands at exactly 0%. This is due to the unexactness of the whole issue.

Don´t you see that I already addressed this? The hypothesis you propose is called parallelism and it´s not scientifical because it´s not testable. As I said before, there´s no possible empirical proof that could refute it. The thing with the pixies was to show you how unscientific it is. It´s just like I would say gravitation is caused by pixies. Pixies that aren´t measurable. Try to refute that. It´s impossible and the hypothesis therefore unscientifical. So when you believe in parallelism you can as well believe in pixies.

Pindar

01-12-2004, 22:52

Hmmm, seems there has been some activity in my abscence.

Quote[/b] ]A very serious question. The causal system cannot be its own cause, so there must be a cause outside of it. But any cause would be part of the causal system. This is Parmenides problem in modern shape. I can only see two possible answers:
- there is no causality
- the assumption that something cannot come from nothing is false

Since I´m fond of causality, I favour the second answer.

I wondered whether you would opt for Scylla or Charibdis. Now let's see what your captaincy has wrought.

First, your ontology contains a contradiction. You argued that: In my opinion, only what is part of the causal system can be seen as existent and in that way an abstract entity does not exist. Your material causality takes its impetus from an abstraction which cannot exist in your system.

Second, you have an arbitrary starting principle. In rejecting the Parmenidian position you have assumed a point of origin that is counter intuitive and contrary to standard logic. There is no necessary grounding force to your claim, other than personal preference. In taking this position, you have moved beyond the rational sphere.

Third, by simply assuming a 'sui generous' beginning point without providing necessity, earlier reductio objections to a First Cause (which do claim necessity) no longer appear applicable or seemly.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe we don´t understand the same thing as causality. IMO causality is the principle that if you know the current state of a closed system and all laws affecting the system, you can predict any future state of the system. Determinism is the view that this principle is entirely true for the world. The things you called causes are not necessary to predict a future state from the current state.

That is correct. We are working off of different definitons. I do not see cause as a strictly asymetric temporality.

Quote[/b] ]Well, saying that Searle isn´t familiar with neuroscience is probably too strong. It´s only that all of these you name are philosophers, not scientists. They usually have quite some insight into fields of their interests, but are prone to overlook details. I want to name Daniel Dennett as a prominent example.

I think you will argee that cognitive science is a bog. There are major gaps between the researchers regarding its theoretical and practical aspects.

Quote[/b] ]However, what I said isn´t in contradiction to what Searle says anyway. Note that Searle´s black box or Chinese room wasn´t an argument against cognitive physicalism, only against the strong-AI-program of Dennett and his comrads. Searle claims that what he calls causal power is needed to generate understanding and that a computer therefore cannot have understanding. I think he´s partly right, but unfortunately (since I like him) it can be proven that he´s also partly wrong.

Even if I grant a charitable partly wrong an admitted partly right makes the earlier argument: process alone does not equal understanding.

Quote[/b] ]The brain is a machine. The neurons it consists of, are information transport or process units. So, whatever happens in the brain is information processing. This includes consciousness. I know this sounds confusing and counter-intuitive, but the more grip one has on neurophysiology the more plausible it is.

Recognizing the brain is a machine and there is a physical component does not mean one can thereby reduce conscienceness simply to the brain. All attempts to reduce conscienceness to brain processess have been forced into an infinite regress.

(Our focus is not on AI or understanding. These are side issues. I have answered here and left your last post surrounding ethics unanswered because of my desire to narrow, as opposed to its opposite, our field of discussion. I will answer your questions on revelation etc. if you wish, but I wasn't sure it was actually something you wanted to pursue).

Quote[/b] ]I don´t think you understood my argument. You can make different estimations, but only one of this estimations has the lowest average failure. I call this estimation the rational one, because it is rational to choose it and not the others. In the same way as it is rational not to expect you´ll win the lottery.

The problem is that probability analysis cannot answer the basic question of being. It may be rational not to expect to win the lottery, but sombody actually does win.

I need a qualifier. The article 'the' could be used in our discussion to mean 'only' or 'superior'. I took your position to be: 'the rational estimation' meaning atheism, as the only rational estimation. This is folly and reflects what I have been correcting. If you are actually saying: atheism, as a rational estimation, is the superior one, then the view is emotive and not of particular concern

A.Saturnus

01-13-2004, 23:04

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 12 2004,22:52)]First, your ontology contains a contradiction. You argued that: In my opinion, only what is part of the causal system can be seen as existent and in that way an abstract entity does not exist. Your material causality takes its impetus from an abstraction which cannot exist in your system.
Either I seriously misunderstand you or you misunderstood me as this doesn´t seem to make sense to me. What I said is that abstract entities (like the triangle) aren´t existent. Of course abstractions are possible. The system of causality bases on the expectation that the existence of state X will lead to the existence of state Y in the future. The exclusion of abstract entities means that neither state may be the state of an abstract entity. To speak of causality, the included entities in cause and effect must be existent (and not abstract). That causality itself is an abstract concept isn´t any problem. Just like it is no problem that an existent entity can have the shape of a triangle.

Quote[/b] ]Second, you have an arbitrary starting principle. In rejecting the Parmenidian position you have assumed a point of origin that is counter intuitive and contrary to standard logic. There is no necessary grounding force to your claim, other than personal preference. In taking this position, you have moved beyond the rational sphere.

Actually my starting principle is less arbitrary than that you posed. It´s also not counter-rational. There´s no principle in logic that would contradict creatio ex nihilo, I´m therefore still well within the rational sphere. If this were different there couldn´t be a rational alternative to determinism since this principle would also rule out chance in strict sense. What I proposed is only counter-intuitive. It´s so counter-intuitive that you confused it with being irrational. That has happen to others about quantum physics.
That there´s no necesary grounding force to my claim is somewhat true. As I said, one could also reject causality completely. I am simply not equipped to do this. Nor are you.

Quote[/b] ]Third, by simply assuming a 'sui generous' beginning point without providing necessity, earlier reductio objections to a First Cause (which do claim necessity) no longer appear applicable or seemly.

You either misunderstand my argument now or the counter-arguments against the First Cause. Or you forgot my counter-arguments. The First Cause argument is invalid because it´s not a solution. The question of causality applies even to the First Cause. If there´s a First Cause, it´s part of the System of Causality, so the question what caused the System of Causality is still unanswered. This question cannot be answered by assuming another cause Therefore the whole First Cause argument is pointless and doesn´t solve the problem. Creatio ex nihilo is a possible solution, though it´s a counter-intuitive one.

Quote[/b] ]That is correct. We are working off of different definitons. I do not see cause as a strictly asymetric temporality.

Good this is settled. Though I can´t remember what that now means to our discussion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

Quote[/b] ]I think you will argee that cognitive science is a bog. There are major gaps between the researchers regarding its theoretical and practical aspects.

There are gaps agreed, but that doesn´t mean philosophers can theoreticise what they want (well they can, but it doesn´t make usefull thoughts necessarily).

Quote[/b] ]Even if I grant a charitable partly wrong an admitted partly right makes the earlier argument: process alone does not equal understanding.

In Searle´s view it´s the process of the right structure (the brain) that makes understanding. If the brain were a machine without noise, he could be right (now figure out what that means http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-beam.gif ).

Quote[/b] ]Recognizing the brain is a machine and there is a physical component does not mean one can thereby reduce conscienceness simply to the brain. All attempts to reduce conscienceness to brain processess have been forced into an infinite regress.

(Our focus is not on AI or understanding. These are side issues. I have answered here and left your last post surrounding ethics unanswered because of my desire to narrow, as opposed to its opposite, our field of discussion. I will answer your questions on revelation etc. if you wish, but I wasn't sure it was actually something you wanted to pursue).

A narrowing of the field of discussion is acceptable. The reductionism of the mind is complex issue and it would need a thorough and long discours to show you that you´re utterly wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
So I´ll only recommand the books of Antonio Damasio and his not at all failing attempt to reduce consciousness to the brain processes.

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that probability analysis cannot answer the basic question of being. It may be rational not to expect to win the lottery, but sombody actually does win.

That´s not the question. I already granted theists the possibility to be right. My point always was about probability.

Quote[/b] ]I need a qualifier. The article 'the' could be used in our discussion to mean 'only' or 'superior'. I took your position to be: 'the rational estimation' meaning atheism, as the only rational estimation. This is folly and reflects what I have been correcting. If you are actually saying: atheism, as a rational estimation, is the superior one, then the view is emotive and not of particular concern

No, no, no, it´s not emotive That´s what I´m argueing all the time. It is superior on a non-arbitrary basis namely probability. Atheism has more chance to be right than theism. That and only that is the reason I´m calling it the rational estimation.

Ludens

01-14-2004, 18:58

Master Pindar, I have had about three weeks to think over your reply to me (page 12), so it is about time I came up with an answer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif .

You argued that the (materialistic) atheistic position lacks a first cause and is therefore, from a logical point of view, incomplete. The theistic position does have a first cause. I am with you so far.

However, when I thought about it and reformulated it in more direct terms, it meant that I had to become religious or else the universe wouldn't be complete.
That didn't make sense to me. How can we know that this first cause has to be a god (in the traditional meaning of god, one which you should worship)? We don't. We just know that it is something that is not included in a materialist world view.

So the atheistic position is not the rational estimation, but neither is the theistic one, because that depends on the existence of a god which, we both agree, cannot be (dis-)proven at this point.

I've ran out of arguments, so you win this discussion. I admit that atheism is not The rational estimation. Congratulations http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif .

Sorry for the delay of the reply.

Pindar

01-14-2004, 22:08

Quote[/b] ]To speak of causality, the included entities in cause and effect must be existent (and not abstract). That causality itself is an abstract concept isn´t any problem. Just like it is no problem that an existent entity can have the shape of a triangle.

So, there is an abstract entity (causality) that informs being while it doesn't exist itself?

Quote[/b] ]It´s also not counter-rational. There´s no principle in logic that would contradict creatio ex nihilo, I´m therefore still well within the rational sphere.

creation ex nihilo in its basic form assumes a Creator that creates without reference to any other thing beyond the Divine will. A logic that assumes a Divine First Principle can maintain validity. An ex nihilo posture without that Divine referent confronts the Parmenidian dilema: Being cannot come from non-being. If you believe this is in fact possible then present the logical process. Inability to do this will doom your position or confine it to irrationality.

Quote[/b] ]If this were different there couldn´t be a rational alternative to determinism since this principle would also rule out chance in strict sense.

The responses to determinism are legion depending on how one defines and qualifies the terms to be used.

Quote[/b] ]That there´s no necesary grounding force to my claim is somewhat true. As I said, one could also reject causality completely. I am simply not equipped to do this. Nor are you.

Recognizing there is no necessity to your position impacts your ability to claim the rational high ground.

Quote[/b] ]The First Cause argument is invalid because it´s not a solution. The question of causality applies even to the First Cause. If there´s a First Cause, it´s part of the System of Causality

You are saying that every major thinker in the Western Tradion, including the inventor of logic did not understand basic logic? The use of invalidity is wrong as is your understanding of this principle. If you have a necessary first cause that is, by definition, removed from the further reductio claims. You are not required to accept the view, but the logic is correct.

Quote[/b] ]Creatio ex nihilo is a possible solution, though it´s a counter-intuitive one.

Your appeals to theological argument to make an atheistic case is very amusing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif Creatio ex nihilo abscent an established order of Being (a necessary prior Creator informing the creation) is an absurdity.

Quote[/b] ] I´ll only recommand the books of Antonio Damasio

Damasio is as equally confused as the Churchland's and less convincing.

Quote[/b] ] I already granted theists the possibility to be right. My point always was about probability.

This is why statisticians do not make good philosophers. Recognizing the counter possiblity means a counter rationality also exists. Probability is itself an arbitrary position from which to pass a conclusive judgement. Atheism is a conclusive posture.

Quote[/b] ]Atheism has more chance to be right than theism.

What is this based upon I wonder? I hope it is more compelling than appeals to Ockham's aesthetic.

Papewaio

01-15-2004, 00:26

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 15 2004,06:08)]
Quote[/b] ]It´s also not counter-rational. There´s no principle in logic that would contradict creatio ex nihilo, I´m therefore still well within the rational sphere.

creation ex nihilo in its basic form assumes a Creator that creates without reference to any other thing beyond the Divine will. A logic that assumes a Divine First Principle can maintain validity. An ex nihilo posture without that Divine referent confronts the Parmenidian dilema: Being cannot come from non-being. If you believe this is in fact possible then present the logical process. Inability to do this will doom your position or confine it to irrationality.
Gentlemen.

You can create the basic building blocks of life out of non-living material.

Life on this earth, beings came out of non-animate material.

Pindar

01-15-2004, 02:15

Quote[/b] ]You can create the basic building blocks of life out of non-living material.

Life on this earth, beings came out of non-animate material.

I take it you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment. This experiement is an anachronism. More to the point, this particular question is not focused on the origins of life. Rather, the Parmenidian dilemma is looking into the notion of being itself. Your life on earth reference already assumes an earth and a universe. You have misunderstood.

Pindar

01-15-2004, 02:28

Heir Ludens,

Quote[/b] ]You argued that the (materialistic) atheistic position lacks a first cause and is therefore, from a logical point of view, incomplete. The theistic position does have a first cause. I am with you so far.

However, when I thought about it and reformulated it in more direct terms, it meant that I had to become religious or else the universe wouldn't be complete.
That didn't make sense to me. How can we know that this first cause has to be a god (in the traditional meaning of god, one which you should worship)? We don't. We just know that it is something that is not included in a materialist world view.

So the atheistic position is not the rational estimation, but neither is the theistic one, because that depends on the existence of a god which, we both agree, cannot be (dis-)proven at this point.

Your basic intuition about an appeal to a First Cause is correct. The typical Medieval response was to conflate Deity with the First Casue given that both are necessary by definition. Regardless, such appeal is simply a coherence model.

I agree with you that a logical proof or disproof for deity does not exist save for the possibility of revelation: in which case, the knowledge would be exclusive to the revealee. Thus, knowledge is confined to the knowable and faith to the realm of belief.

Papewaio

01-15-2004, 04:37

I separated being as individual from first cause which is an invalid arguement.

First cause in a scientific sense is not required to explain the universe we are in. The Big Bang is the first event and in the process time and space was created. You cannot go before that time because time did not exist.

Also how does logic explain a system which requires a first cause? Surely the first cause requires a first cause which to infinity... that alone requires infinite time and energy. We live in a finite universe hence it makes if difficult for it to contain infinite first causes.

For the individual as a being it does not require another being to create it there is the whole hierachy of attributes. Take several simple things add them together and you have the simple things attributes and you have the new more complex items attributes. Add these new complex things to get more and more complex things. When the complexity of the conglomerate is sufficient enough it is self aware and hence a being. It does not require another being to give birth to it or create it, it just requires a sufficient complexity within itself.

Dillinger

01-15-2004, 05:57

Keaton used to always say 'I don't believe in God, but I sure as hell am scared of him'.

Brutal DLX

01-15-2004, 09:06

Brutal DLX

01-15-2004, 10:12

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 11 2004,20:48)]
Sigh.

Quote[/b] ]Good, I feared for a moment you were a naive realist. But what do you have against statistics? It is true, most evidence (though not all) in psychology is statistical. But statistics are also essential in biology and I doubt there aren´t experiments in physics that include statistics. Would you call all of this unreliable?

My thanks must go to Pindar for expressing my reservations about statistics better than I possibly could.
See there, please.

Quote[/b] ]Well it´s vagueness makes it difficult to discuss about because we might understand different things by it. That´s why Hume tried to find a more precise definition. His point is also that any connection between cause and effect beyond contigencey is actually an empty concept. He argues that a concept of causality that only contains contigencey and nothing else is all that is needed.

Indeed it can make it difficult to discuss, but the same can be said about having different strict definitions in place for the same things. Vagueness is to be avoided in science as much as it is possible, but in every age, there were questions that scholars weren't able to answer with exactness, yet still they expressed their thoughts and formulated hypotheses. Why has that to end in this day and age? I do not want to see scientific progress curdle because of demands for exactness beyond what is possible at the given time.
About the causality position you cited, I do not think in the least that any connection between cause and effect beyond contingency is an empty concept, rather this is where true understanding of the why and how is made, and, admittedly, this is often amiss even in traditional natural sciences, which is understandable if we look at what these sciences are used for. The effect matters more than the actual process explanation. If we know what we have to do to X to get Y, that is all that is needed for practical matters. However, we also should understand and be able to say why doing z to x results in y to a much greater degree.
That is included in my understanding of causality.

Quote[/b] ]Sure, but the context in which I used the word wasn´t ethics.

Certainly, but as I stated before, that was an arbitrary choice of yours, after all we are discussing a question that can be tackled not only by science but by ethics too. Hence the term determinism is vague in itself and only gets more precise when further confined to a field of study. However, then it loses its encompassing character. Another example of vagueness vs. exactness.
Anyway, I gave my reasons for why I don't think your rational-scientific position can be augmented by the use of determinism as you defined it.

Quote[/b] ]Ah, this is then what you mean with vagueness on my side. Ok, well, yes indeed, I think that the world came from nothing. The reason to think so is because it´s an answer to Parmenides´ problem. If you can propose another one I didn´t already refute in this thread, you have my attention. BTW, from a quote Pape posted lately, it seemed to me that Steven Hawking has a similar view.
The reason I don´t give up causality instead is that I´m physiologically not in state to do that consequently, just like you, all other people and even such things as the spine of a dog. (ok, vague again, I admit it, but ask and you shall learn ;) )

Again, Pindar made an excellent point. Yet I shall ask you too, to elaborate on your imagination of how that process actually happened. And please do so in a rational and scientific manner instead of giving me the imagination of Poof There it is.
If you don't give up causality, wouldn't it be rational then to assume a first cause? What would that first cause be? To augment your atheist position, you should be able to provide a first cause. And no, a first cause by definition doesn't need a prior one as it is the first. Logical deduction may lead to seemingly false results, but that is just due to our daily experiences, it's not a fault in logic itself. I am curious to see you use logic to express the creation from nothing and keep this coherent to conventional causality as we have come used to it.

Quote[/b] ]Well, surely it requires quite some time on your side and I understand it when you don´t go into detail, but sorry, when you challenge the foundations of a whole science, you have quite something to explain.
Don´t you see that I already addressed this? The hypothesis you propose is called parallelism and it´s not scientifical because it´s not testable. As I said before, there´s no possible empirical proof that could refute it. The thing with the pixies was to show you how unscientific it is. It´s just like I would say gravitation is caused by pixies. Pixies that aren´t measurable. Try to refute that. It´s impossible and the hypothesis therefore unscientifical. So when you believe in parallelism you can as well believe in pixies.

All I see is that you addressed it by giving it a name. Say, how is the the assumption that the brain causes consciousness and is the source of all mind related things testable? Both assumptions/hypotheses provide explanations for all effects that we can measure atm, so why is it unscientific to assume the mind as relay rather than as cause? Solely because you back up your position by probability and simplicity (Ockham). That is a guideline for tackling otherwise unanswerable problems to allow continued progress, a basic convention if you will, my friend, but not a proof by any means for anything and certainly doesn't make one stance scientifical and others not.

And to continue your pixie example, pixies could be measurable if you would meet them. The existence of pixies cannot be proven or disproven, alright, therefore by logic we have to concede that they might exist. That is as far as our rational evaluation can go. To link pixies to gravity is possible, but not rational unless they reveal themselves to you and demonstrate or explain that they do have an influence on gravity, but we know nothing about them. Neither you (I guess) or I. Therefore you are making an arbitrarily connection between something you don't know about and some other random thing to counter the hypothesis I have presented. That is not the way to go in an argument. You would need to find a similar example and show its absurdity to make any valid point.
However, we know about consciousness (I suspect you do too ;)) and some of us have had strange mental experiences. They may or may not have been hallucinations, but the mere fact that those experiences have been made lends credence to the formulation of alternative hypotheses about mind, consciousness and their relation to the physical world.

A.Saturnus

01-15-2004, 16:25

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 14 2004,22:08)]So, there is an abstract entity (causality) that informs being while it doesn't exist itself?
Yes, that could be said so. If that sounds contradictory to you then you´re using 'existent' in a broad sense, while I use it in a narrow sense. Causality is a relation. Two entities can have a causal relationship, just like they can have an arithmetical relationship. In the narrow use of 'existence' arithmetics cannot be existent, while the entities that have a arithmetical relationship can. The borad use of 'existence' has the problem that everything thinkable is actually existent. If arithmetics exist, the pegasus exists too, since they have the same abstract character. That´s why I´m using 'existence' in a narrow meaning.

Quote[/b] ]creation ex nihilo in its basic form assumes a Creator that creates without reference to any other thing beyond the Divine will. A logic that assumes a Divine First Principle can maintain validity. An ex nihilo posture without that Divine referent confronts the Parmenidian dilema: Being cannot come from non-being. If you believe this is in fact possible then present the logical process. Inability to do this will doom your position or confine it to irrationality.

Sorry my friend but your position will be doomed to irrationality if you cannot show me a logical principle that says that being cannot come from non-being. Which you can´t. Causality is not required by logic. If causality is suspended, particles can emerge from vacuum, nuclear rockets can turn into whales and the whole universe can spring to existence from nothingness. There´s nothing irrational about that. The Parmenidian position maybe an assumption of common sense, but it´s not a logical axioma.

Quote[/b] ]The responses to determinism are legion depending on how one defines and qualifies the terms to be used.

Sure. But if chance in strict sense were prohibited by logic, indeterminism couldn´t take place and LaPlace´s demon would work necessarily.

Quote[/b] ]Recognizing there is no necessity to your position impacts your ability to claim the rational high ground.

Concerning Hume´s causality-problem I do not claim the rational high ground. Only the practical one.

Quote[/b] ]You are saying that every major thinker in the Western Tradion, including the inventor of logic did not understand basic logic?

Ad verecundiam

Quote[/b] ]Damasio is as equally confused as the Churchland's and less convincing.

Well, I´m sure you would have a hard time presenting evidence for this claim, but since already agreed to drop this part of the discussion, you don´t have to.

So far the points of your post that seemed to me as contribution to a serious discussion. I´ll address the rest seperatedly.

A.Saturnus

01-15-2004, 17:16

Now, let´s come to the strange and unnerving parts of your post. Please, I don´t want to sound rude, I know you´re a very well-informed and intelligent person, Pindar and so far we had an exceptional good discussion. But some parts of your last post have given me the feeling that I´m argueing in vain since I´m confronted with points that shouldn´t be part of a constructive discussion such as this one.

Quote[/b] ]The use of invalidity is wrong as is your understanding of this principle. If you have a necessary first cause that is, by definition, removed from the further reductio claims. You are not required to accept the view, but the logic is correct.

Why do you unnecessarily repeat yourself? I have already answered to that. Furtunately we have a quote-function.

Quote[/b] ]This solution bases - as you say - on the definition of god which says that the concept of god doesn´t require a cause. It is invalid because the problem cannot be solved by giving a definition. It´s like this:
Original problem: everthing needs a cause other than itself -> the cause for everthing needs a cause -> it cannot be the cause of everthing since it cannot be it´s own cause
theist solution: god doesn´t need a cause -> he can be cause for everthing
the premise of the solution contradicts the premise of the problem

Quote[/b] ]Presenting an absolute as a necessary and sufficient condition for being is not invalid in and of itself.
A theist would reject your first posit: 'everything needs a cause other than itself'. A triangle doesn't require an outside causality. It is by definition. Regarding temporal objects: that status, along with its attendent contingency, precludes any such object from acting as its own cause. It does not follow from that recognition that all objects are so consrained i.e. an absolute.

Quote[/b] ]A triangle doesn´t need an outside causality because it does not exist. The geometric object of a triangle is an abstract entity, not a 'thing'. It has reality only as a quality of existing objects, call it 'triangleness'. The definition of a triangle cannot proof any existence claim of anything triangle-shaped. The triangle itself cannot cause anything.

Quote[/b] ]A trianlge does exist. It exists as an abstract entity. An abstract entity is a thing, a noun.

From here we enter the discussion of 'existence'. Note that, whether a triangle now exists or not, you haven´t challenged my position that the idea of the triangle itself cannot proof any existence claim of anything triangle-shape. I have therefore expected that you accept this position. From this position follows that also the idea of god cannot work as the proof to the existence claim of the first cause.
If you do not agree with this reasoning, why didn´t you attack it before but instead repeat positions I have already addressed?

Quote[/b] ]This is why statisticians do not make good philosophers. Recognizing the counter possiblity means a counter rationality also exists. Probability is itself an arbitrary position from which to pass a conclusive judgement. Atheism is a conclusive posture.

It seems to be impossible to make my position clear to you. I´ll give it a last try.
Why do I not play the lottery? Because statistic says that the expected gain is negative (when material gain is the purpose of playing). This is neither arbitrary nor emotive, it´s - given the circumstances of the game - a truth in the same way 1+1=2 is a truth. Since I would have to expect a negative gain, I decide not to play. That is the rational decision. In this matter it is not a rational decision since all other decisions are worse. It is the best of the possible decisions. It is possible that I would have won the lottery if I had played, but that doesn´t change the fact that in the situation of uncertainty not playing is the rational decision.
My atheistic position is similar to this. My aim is to hit the true answer. To achieve this, it is rational to bet on the statistical most likely position. And that is atheism. It is therefore the rational decision to accept atheism, because it is the estimation with the highest probability. It is possible that it is a wrong position, but the probability for this is higher for all other positions.
Ok, if it´s still not clear, I give up.

Quote[/b] ]What is this based upon I wonder? I hope it is more compelling than appeals to Ockham's aesthetic.

This is what shocks and disappoints me. I really thought better of you. I have done much work to show that Occam´s razor is more than aesthetics. You haven´t presented a spark of a counter-argument against it, but you do as if I had never tried to back my position with a page-long explanation. You simply ignore it???
Rational arguments are at an end here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

katar

01-15-2004, 18:03

will someone please kill this thread, if i wasn`t an atheist it would have driven me to suicide aeons ago. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

Gregoshi

01-15-2004, 22:07

Though I can sympathize katar, these intellectual titans have been going at it for weeks on a very hot topic and managed to keep it flame retardent. That is an impressive achievement and one to be admired. We'll only kill it when one of them finally cracks under the pressure and goes off the deep end. Otherwise, we'll just let this one die a nature death (and whatever becomes of it after that). Until then, just watch the replies count rise and shake your head.

Please continue Ladies and Gentlemen. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif )

katar

01-15-2004, 22:30

Quote[/b] ]flame retardent

and so is wet cardboard, which is just as interesting as what is currently going on here, let them play till they get as bored as i am.

oh well, i`ll leave them to it, there are more interesting/better topics elsewhere on the site. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

Gregoshi

01-16-2004, 01:34

To each his own. As far as I know, no one is twisting your arm to read this topic - and if they are, you need to let us know. Move on to greener pastures...just watch out for cow droppings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Pindar

01-16-2004, 23:46

Sorry I was unable to answer yesteday, but I didn't have the time to devout the proper space to the issues at hand.

Quote[/b] ]Sorry my friend but your position will be doomed to irrationality if you cannot show me a logical principle that says that being cannot come from non-being. Which you can´t. Causality is not required by logic.

Ontic systems can be divided into two groups: materialism and idealism. The former takes phenomenal manifestations as its starting ground. The latter takes conceptual manifestations as its starting ground. In each case, initial Being is seen as always already present. The existence of Being therefore is prior to and informs any analysis. Both idealistic and materialistic systems trace their origins to the Parmenidian position that Being 'is' and must always have been. It is because of this view that a recognition of contigent being leads to the recognition of necessary being. Being's manifest presence and over arching reality regardless, of materialist or idealist perspective, precludes the possibility of a prior nothing postulate as having been the case. The reason being: to assume a contrary position that there is a point when there was no-Being that subesquently came to 'be' is to assume a mechanism whereby this change of affairs was brought about. Unfortunately, this assumed mechanism contradicts the status of there being 'nothing'. To simply say there was nothing, but then there was something without any accounting as to why and how is either a simple ascertion or a position without a rationale, in which case it is not rational. Thus, the view nothing can produce nothing.

Now, you have put forward as a rational position that this nothing to something is in fact the case. I have asked for an accounting as to how this occurs. You have not answered that call. This is a critical point to your position. If you cannot give a rationale, then your view lacks a foundation for being.

Quote[/b] ]But if chance in strict sense were prohibited by logic, indeterminism couldn´t take place and LaPlace´s demon would work necessarily.

Chance in a strict sense is not prohibited by logic and LaPlace's demon breaks down in a pluralistic universe.

Quote[/b] ]You are saying that every major thinker in the Western Tradion, including the inventor of logic did not understand basic logic?

Ad verecundiam

Ad Verecundiam: An informal fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate because the authority appealed to has no speacial claim to expertise on the matter in question.

I did not appeal to Lord Byron in discussing logic, but the orginator of Logic: Aristotle and the major voices of the Western Philosophical Tradtion i.e. Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel etc would serve as examples. All of these would recognize the First Cause argument as valid even if some may reject the metaphysical posture. You have claimed it is, in point of fact, an invalid argument. The reason you gave was a reductio causality must go on regardless of the claim of a being that is by definition necessary and prior. This is tantamount to continuing to demand to see the wife of a bachelor. Now, I already said, you could deny there is a necessary First Being just as you could deny there are any bachelors. But denying the existence of a thing is different from denying the logic. I ask again, are you saying the creator of logic and the major thinkers of the Western Tradtion did not understand basic logic? If your answer is yes, I think the one misunderstanding logic lies elsewhere.

Quote[/b] ]From here we enter the discussion of 'existence'. Note that, whether a triangle now exists or not, you haven´t challenged my position that the idea of the triangle itself cannot proof any existence claim of anything triangle-shape. I have therefore expected that you accept this position. From this position follows that also the idea of god cannot work as the proof to the existence claim of the first cause.
If you do not agree with this reasoning, why didn´t you attack it before but instead repeat positions I have already addressed?

Regarding the above, I have been looking to understand a position that, on the face of it, appears horribly convoluted. When and how I address what you write in explanation is dependent on: the worth of your explanation, my understanding of your view, and how it relates to the other issues being pressed.

As far as the triangle point is concerned: you know as well as I that an idealist appeal can give a simple answer to triangle the concept and the triangleness of material objects that is at variance to your position. While you, I am sure, would reject this kind of explanation because of certain perceived difficulites inherent in idealist postures: your attachement to causality as the standard for existence, that itself is problematic via Hume's critque, is interesting.

Regardless, your rejection of the existence claims of apriori objects like triangle does not equal a proof as much as a distinction by definition.

Quote[/b] ]It seems to be impossible to make my position clear to you. I´ll give it a last try.
Why do I not play the lottery? Because statistic says that the expected gain is negative (when material gain is the purpose of playing). This is neither arbitrary nor emotive, it´s - given the circumstances of the game - a truth in the same way 1+1=2 is a truth. Since I would have to expect a negative gain, I decide not to play. That is the rational decision. In this matter it is not a rational decision since all other decisions are worse. It is the best of the possible decisions. It is possible that I would have won the lottery if I had played, but that doesn´t change the fact that in the situation of uncertainty not playing is the rational decision.
My atheistic position is similar to this. My aim is to hit the true answer. To achieve this, it is rational to bet on the statistical most likely position. And that is atheism. It is therefore the rational decision to accept atheism, because it is the estimation with the highest probability. It is possible that it is a wrong position, but the probability for this is higher for all other positions.
Ok, if it´s still not clear, I give up.

I have been focusing on the logic of your claim. An appeal to probability does not justify or discredit a knowledge claim regadless of the precentages involved, because the system itself must always allow for the contrary result. Brutal DLX appears to understand this intuitively, but you press forward. If you insist that probability justifies a knowledge claim and, I were to grant that view, the following additional problems apply:

Knowledge claims can be divided into three types:

coherence
correspondence
instrumental

Your statistical knowledge claim is instrumental. A coherence model is solely theoretical and thereby does not make empirical appeals. Your position makes appeals to experience. A correspondence model is definitaive in its conclusion, whereas your probability model necessarily allows for a contrary result. Morerover, you have stated your view is practical and benefits driven. Here are some of the logical problems:

1) God does not exist is true.
2) It is useful to believe that God does not exist.

Your insrumentality assigns the same meaning to these two statements in that they are seen as exchangable just as the following two statements are exchangable:

3) Bob is pro-choice.
4) Bob favors abortion on demand.

Statements 3) and 4) are asserting the same propostion. Satements 1) and 2) do not. In order to assume your view the common notion of truth would have to be altered. Altering the definition of truth to accomodate a single position is not reasonable. Regardless of whether or not certain truths are beneficial to believe or not, usefulness cannot be the standard for assiging truth.

Next, by basing a truth claim on its usefulness, it begs the question that the benefits are already known. If using your calculus one followed an atheist's life all his days and upon death found himself standing before St. Peter, aside from the astonishment, he would have to conclude he had erred and there was no benefit to his atheist position. Thus, the system would have been wrong which means, despite his probabilty analysis, he lacked knowledge which contradicts the knoweldge claim. In order to know that the knowledge claim is useful one must depend on a correspondence position and be able to peer into heaven and check whether someone is sitting on the throne or not. If that were possible the instrumental appeal is not necessary. Without that correspondence, the usefulness is constantly subject to testing and change before something can be true. This leads to an infinate regress.

Finally, it is possible to argue that something may be true and not be useful: that Caesar died in 44 B.C. may be of no use to a Mongolian shepard and yet be true, just as the number of hairs on my head is of no use to me but that does not mean a number cannot be assigned.

The usefulness of a knowldege claim is incidental as to its veracity.

Using a probablitity mechanism to derrive knowledge claims fails as an instrumentality and as a viable option.

A.Saturnus

01-16-2004, 23:50

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 15 2004,10:12)]My thanks must go to Pindar for expressing my reservations about statistics better than I possibly could.
See there, please.
He who doesn´t understand mathematics, stay out - motto of Aristotle´s acadamia http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Whatever feelings you and Pindar have about statistics. It´s a very usefull tool and the use of it in the natural sciences is manifold, so that psychology uses it is rather are argument in favour of it´s position as a natural science.

Quote[/b] ]I do not want to see scientific progress curdle because of demands for exactness beyond what is possible at the given time.

I couldn´t have made a better plea for psychology as science. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-happy2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

Quote[/b] ]About the causality position you cited, I do not think in the least that any connection between cause and effect beyond contingency is an empty concept, rather this is where true understanding of the why and how is made, and, admittedly, this is often amiss even in traditional natural sciences, which is understandable if we look at what these sciences are used for. The effect matters more than the actual process explanation. If we know what we have to do to X to get Y, that is all that is needed for practical matters. However, we also should understand and be able to say why doing z to x results in y to a much greater degree.
That is included in my understanding of causality.

The qualities of different definitions on causality make an interesting discussion, but I fear it would exceed the frame of this thread even more. We can discuss it when we have our own forum (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=13;t=14391;st=0;&#entry214910)
I merely used Hume´s view on causality because I consider it more to the point than Aristotle´s. Whether contingency is all to causality isn´t that important to the point I was making.

Quote[/b] ]Again, Pindar made an excellent point. Yet I shall ask you too, to elaborate on your imagination of how that process actually happened. And please do so in a rational and scientific manner instead of giving me the imagination of Poof There it is.
If you don't give up causality, wouldn't it be rational then to assume a first cause? What would that first cause be? To augment your atheist position, you should be able to provide a first cause. And no, a first cause by definition doesn't need a prior one as it is the first. Logical deduction may lead to seemingly false results, but that is just due to our daily experiences, it's not a fault in logic itself. I am curious to see you use logic to express the creation from nothing and keep this coherent to conventional causality as we have come used to it.

As I have shown, Pindar´s point fails. The First Cause argument he uses isn´t the product of logical deduction. There was no process of deduction involved It´s only a matter of definition, and that´s not enough to prove a point. If this were different, what would stop me from defining the universe as it´s own cause?
The creation from nothingness isn´t coherent to conventional causality, that is it´s point. But since causality is not a principle of logic, that´s not a problem. (Well, it´s a problem to imagination.) The rational elaboration is something in the line of poof There it is. As I said before, if you suspend causality, everything thinkable is possible and poof There it is is thinkable. A scientifically explanation can´t be given, since science requires causality (to a certain amount - not absolutely) and that we have suspended. What I proposed was philosophical explanation, not a scientifical one.

Quote[/b] ]Certainly, but as I stated before, that was an arbitrary choice of yours, after all we are discussing a question that can be tackled not only by science but by ethics too. Hence the term determinism is vague in itself and only gets more precise when further confined to a field of study. However, then it loses its encompassing character. Another example of vagueness vs. exactness.

Sorry, what is arbitrary? We discussed a epistemological/ontologic question, not an ethical one, so I thought it would be clear determinism wasn´t meant in an ethical sense. Sorry if that was confusing.

Quote[/b] ]All I see is that you addressed it by giving it a name. Say, how is the the assumption that the brain causes consciousness and is the source of all mind related things testable? Both assumptions/hypotheses provide explanations for all effects that we can measure atm, so why is it unscientific to assume the mind as relay rather than as cause? Solely because you back up your position by probability and simplicity (Ockham). That is a guideline for tackling otherwise unanswerable problems to allow continued progress, a basic convention if you will, my friend, but not a proof by any means for anything and certainly doesn't make one stance scientifical and others not.

Bei euch ihr Herren kann man das Wesen gewöhnlich aus dem Namen lesen, wo es sich nur all zu deutlich weist, wenn man euch Fliegengott, Verderber, Lügner heißt http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif (j/k)
Cognitive physicalism is - unlike parallelism - falsifyable. If you can show that minds can exist seperatedly from brains, physicalism would be refuted. No one managed that so far. Parallelism on the other hand hasn´t made any scientific progress since Descartes. And even he realized that it´s problematic.
Hell, it seems to me that your only criterium for being unscientific is the use of statistics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

BTW, your posted battlefield-screenshots were great

So, and now I´m watching Bruce Almighty http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-tongue2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

Pindar

01-17-2004, 01:49

Quote[/b] ]He who doesn´t understand mathematics, stay out - motto of Aristotle´s acadamia
Whatever feelings you and Pindar have about statistics. It´s a very usefull tool and the use of it in the natural sciences is manifold,

No one argues that statistics can do nothing. Rather, the position is it cannot do everything. More to the point, statistics cannot make definative existence claims.

note: The Academy was Plato's university. The Lyceum was founded by Aristotle.

Papewaio

01-17-2004, 08:32

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 17 2004,07:46)]Sorry I was unable to answer yesteday, but I didn't have the time to devout the proper space to the issues at hand.

Quote[/b] ]Sorry my friend but your position will be doomed to irrationality if you cannot show me a logical principle that says that being cannot come from non-being. Which you can´t. Causality is not required by logic.

Ontic systems can be divided into two groups: materialism and idealism. The former takes phenomenal manifestations as its starting ground. The latter takes conceptual manifestations as its starting ground. In each case, initial Being is seen as always already present. The existence of Being therefore is prior to and informs any analysis. Both idealistic and materialistic systems trace their origins to the Parmenidian position that Being 'is' and must always have been. It is because of this view that a recognition of contigent being leads to the recognition of necessary being. Being's manifest presence and over arching reality regardless, of materialist or idealist perspective, precludes the possibility of a prior nothing postulate as having been the case. The reason being: to assume a contrary position that there is a point when there was no-Being that subesquently came to 'be' is to assume a mechanism whereby this change of affairs was brought about. Unfortunately, this assumed mechanism contradicts the status of there being 'nothing'. To simply say there was nothing, but then there was something without any accounting as to why and how is either a simple ascertion or a position without a rationale, in which case it is not rational. Thus, the view nothing can produce nothing.

Now, you have put forward as a rational position that this nothing to something is in fact the case. I have asked for an accounting as to how this occurs. You have not answered that call. This is a critical point to your position. If you cannot give a rationale, then your view lacks a foundation for being.

Quote[/b] ]But if chance in strict sense were prohibited by logic, indeterminism couldn´t take place and LaPlace´s demon would work necessarily.

Chance in a strict sense is not prohibited by logic and LaPlace's demon breaks down in a pluralistic universe.

Quote[/b] ]You are saying that every major thinker in the Western Tradion, including the inventor of logic did not understand basic logic?

Ad verecundiam

Ad Verecundiam: An informal fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate because the authority appealed to has no speacial claim to expertise on the matter in question.

I did not appeal to Lord Byron in discussing logic, but the orginator of Logic: Aristotle and the major voices of the Western Philosophical Tradtion i.e. Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel etc would serve as examples. All of these would recognize the First Cause argument as valid even if some may reject the metaphysical posture. You have claimed it is, in point of fact, an invalid argument. The reason you gave was a reductio causality must go on regardless of the claim of a being that is by definition necessary and prior. This is tantamount to continuing to demand to see the wife of a bachelor. Now, I already said, you could deny there is a necessary First Being just as you could deny there are any bachelors. But denying the existence of a thing is different from denying the logic. I ask again, are you saying the creator of logic and the major thinkers of the Western Tradtion did not understand basic logic? If your answer is yes, I think the one misunderstanding logic lies elsewhere.

Quote[/b] ]Ontic systems can be divided into two groups: materialism and idealism.

Quote[/b] ]In each case, initial Being is seen as always already present

Defining something does not make it true, it is part of the framework on which the systems is based. It would seem logical that those raised in a religious background will hold onto a system that automatically includes Being.

I am far more interested in a system of understanding that reflects the world around us and does not make assumptions.

It would seem illogical to base an entire system on an axiom that cannot be proved. It would be equally illogical to have a thought system that automatically wiped out the concept of Being without going through the process of disproving it. Normal attributes have a burden of proof, why not b/Being?

Quote[/b] ]The reason being: to assume a contrary position that there is a point when there was no-Being that subesquently came to 'be' is to assume a mechanism whereby this change of affairs was brought about. Unfortunately, this assumed mechanism contradicts the status of there being 'nothing'.

Why should we separate Being from everything else in nature/science/logic? On two scales of nature I know things can come from nothing. Virtual particles and the Big Bang. Why is it automatically assumed then that b/Being cannot rise out of nature? If AI occurs what will that say about being? What does evolution say about being?

If you start adding complexity, special attributes, untestable and unseen phenomena and by definition to a situation it seems to be more a case of defending the status quo then an intellectual attempt at building a system that matches what we can see and can derive what we cannot.

Pindar

01-17-2004, 09:08

Quote[/b] ]Defining something does not make it true,

That is correct.

Quote[/b] ]It would seem logical that those raised in a religious background will hold onto a system that automatically includes Being.

Recognizing Being as foundational has been the beginning point of all Western Thought. It does not require religous overtones. The idea that energy cannot be detroyed is based upon this premise.

Quote[/b] ]On two scales of nature I know things can come from nothing. Virtual particles and the Big Bang. Why is it automatically assumed then that b/Being cannot rise out of nature?

Quantum theory involves a being, not Being. Further, there is a presuposition of a subject.

One does not 'know' the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory. Further, Big Bang theory assumes in its most recent form mathematics or more particularly, singularities.

Nature is part of Being. Being cannot rise out of itself unless one wishes to propose a sui generous view.

I think you have misunderstood. Being is the 'is' from which all predication takes place.

Papewaio

01-17-2004, 12:24

Okay to keep pace I need definitions of what you define as

Being (with a capital B)
and
sui generous

Quote[/b] ]One does not 'know' the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory. Further, Big Bang theory assumes in its most recent form mathematics or more particularly, singularities.

However we know the consequences of the Big Bang and we can measure those consequences.

If (and I need the definitions) Being is a Godlike/Deity that is also the First Cause then we 'know' no science that requires in theory and/or observation the addition of a Being to explain the situation. Mathematics is quite capable of explaining the universe without a God factor.

So why go to the point of adding Being when it seems superflous.

Quote[/b] ]Recognizing Being as foundational has been the beginning point of all Western Thought.

Untrue as I am sure atheists think and can be westerners.

Pindar

01-20-2004, 07:10

Papewaio,

It appears this thread has come to an end. Even so, I wanted to respond to your last post to clarify for you the notion of Being.

Being refers to what is most fundamental to reality. As such, it is not something added, but rather that to which all other properties themselves are added. Being is the 'is' that allows predication and serves as the context whereby the reference to 'a being'or 'a particular' takes meaning. Under a materialistic rubric Being may be an atom or quark or base energy. Being is neither theistic or atheistic in and of itself.

sui generous: refers to something self sourced, not requiring an outside appeal for its existence. In short, something that 'is' without a casual referent.

I hope this helps.

Your other comments I won't respond to since they are based on a misundestanding of Being.

Papewaio

01-20-2004, 07:32

Sweet, thanks

Pindar

01-20-2004, 08:52

Looking over the battle field, he wipes the blood from his blade. Turning toward the rising sun, he heads back to his village, the good earth and peace.

Pindar

Brutal DLX

01-20-2004, 13:10

It's not over until the fat lady sings. I still have to reply to both Ludens and Saturnus, but by and large I think the discussion is dying down since individual positions have been reduced to a point where they hardly can be changed anymore, with the most important arguments having been given already.

A.Saturnus

01-20-2004, 20:54

Sorry, I didn´t respond earlier. My exams and moderating duties have kept me from putting more time into this.

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Jan. 16 2004,23:46)]Ontic systems can be divided into two groups: materialism and idealism. The former takes phenomenal manifestations as its starting ground. The latter takes conceptual manifestations as its starting ground. In each case, initial Being is seen as always already present. The existence of Being therefore is prior to and informs any analysis. Both idealistic and materialistic systems trace their origins to the Parmenidian position that Being 'is' and must always have been. It is because of this view that a recognition of contigent being leads to the recognition of necessary being. Being's manifest presence and over arching reality regardless, of materialist or idealist perspective, precludes the possibility of a prior nothing postulate as having been the case. The reason being: to assume a contrary position that there is a point when there was no-Being that subesquently came to 'be' is to assume a mechanism whereby this change of affairs was brought about. Unfortunately, this assumed mechanism contradicts the status of there being 'nothing'. To simply say there was nothing, but then there was something without any accounting as to why and how is either a simple ascertion or a position without a rationale, in which case it is not rational. Thus, the view nothing can produce nothing.
This contains a circular argument: that there is a point when there was no-Being that subesquently came to 'be' is to assume a mechanism whereby this change of affairs was brought about
The necessity to assume a mechanism implicitly implicates causality. If there´s no causality, such a mechanism is not required. I´m not saying that a state of non-being turned into being but that being came to exist without a cause, without a mechanism.
And this is the accounting as to how it occurs. And it attacks the critical point to your position. The necessity you assume is wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Chance in a strict sense is not prohibited by logic and LaPlace's demon breaks down in a pluralistic universe.

Chance is an example of something happening without a cause.

Quote[/b] ]The reason you gave was a reductio causality must go on regardless of the claim of a being that is by definition necessary and prior. This is tantamount to continuing to demand to see the wife of a bachelor. Now, I already said, you could deny there is a necessary First Being just as you could deny there are any bachelors. But denying the existence of a thing is different from denying the logic. I ask again, are you saying the creator of logic and the major thinkers of the Western Tradtion did not understand basic logic? If your answer is yes, I think the one misunderstanding logic lies elsewhere.

Ad verecundium is an irrelevant appeal to authorities. Logical statements must be proven by deduction, invoking authorities is irrelevant, no matter how important they have been for the development of formal logic. That Aristotle has thought a certain thing doesn´t make it true.
BTW, I´m not the first thinker who attacks the First Cause argument. In fact, Russell surely wasn´t convinced by it. And he being an authority of logic is hardly disputed. My authority can outthink yours
BTW, it´s absurd to say Aristotle invented logic. If so, logical thought would have been impossible for Parmenides and Sokrates. Aristotle invented a formal logic. Since then several other more sophisticated logical formalism have been invented.
I´m not asking for the wife of a bachelor, but you have to realize that some definitions can lead to absurd consequenses. If we start with the assumption that everything needs a cause, the definition of something that doesn´t is an absurdity cause it´s already ruled out by the premise. If we drop the premise, the First Cause argument isn´t needed anymore.
I think that many thinkers of the Western Tradition had a bias in applying logic.

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the above, I have been looking to understand a position that, on the face of it, appears horribly convoluted. When and how I address what you write in explanation is dependent on: the worth of your explanation, my understanding of your view, and how it relates to the other issues being pressed.

As far as the triangle point is concerned: you know as well as I that an idealist appeal can give a simple answer to triangle the concept and the triangleness of material objects that is at variance to your position. While you, I am sure, would reject this kind of explanation because of certain perceived difficulites inherent in idealist postures: your attachement to causality as the standard for existence, that itself is problematic via Hume's critque, is interesting.

Regardless, your rejection of the existence claims of apriori objects like triangle does not equal a proof as much as a distinction by definition.

Don´t worry, your position seems as convoluted to me as mine might seem to you.
Even though I understand the idealist position, it still stands that from the idea of an object the existence of this object cannot be derived. From the possibility of a definition of a First Cause doesn´t follow the possibility of a First Cause.
My attachment to causality as the standard for existence is indeed interesting. I´m not sure, but I think the thought how I propose it is quite new.

Quote[/b] ]Using a probablitity mechanism to derrive knowledge claims fails as an instrumentality and as a viable option.

My point wasn´t pragmatical. I´m not a pragmatist. You possibly thought so because I said I´ve a pragmatic view on the problem of causality, but that´s another context.
So what you´re saying is that every knowledge claim must have probability 1 to be one? Sorry, but that´s absurd. When I´m saying that the sun will rise tomorrow I consider this as a knowledge claim. Of course I can´t be sure that it will happen. The probability is not 1. All our knowledge about the world is probabilistic, since natural science cannot reach truth. Scientists don´t accept a certain theory because it´s undeniable proven, but because it´s likelyhood is to great to deny it. It´s a scepticist position not to accept a certain view just because the probability can´t reach 1. Knowledge isn´t the same as truth. Knowledge doesn´t require that it´s content is true, only that we have reason to believe it´s true.

Brutal DLX

01-21-2004, 00:10

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 10 2004,19:27)]Brutal DLX,

From your replies to both me and A.Saturnus I gathered that you consides vagueness (even if you don't actually think of it as 'vagueness' ) to be a scientiffical virtue. Let me show you that this is not the case.

A hypothesis which his vague cannot be cannot predict anything (that why it is vague), it has to be interpreted (changed) to do so. And this is a very nasty pseudo-scientiffical trick: one can praise the hypothesis for right predictions, but if the hypothesis is wrong, it is just because of wrong interpretation. So, you can NEVER disprove this hypothesis. You cannot find one error in it, the error will aways be in the interpretation, not the hypothesis.

That is why a hypothesis should not be vague. It should be able to predict something without interpretation.

What does Sheldrake's theory predict? Nothing. You cannot prove that it is wrong because it predicts nothing. It just explains things afterwards.
So I'm very curious whether the experiments you mentioned which could proves Sheldrake's theory, include ONE experiment which could disprove it.

Whether it is proven or not does (theoretically) make a difference in scientiffical status. But whether it CAN BE proven does.
Ludens,

vagueness is not a scientific virtue at all, if that's what you gathered from reading my post I must try to rephrase. As I already told Saturnus, vagueness is to be avoided in any hypothesis, but there are instances and circumstances, for example in the initial phase of formulating, that require a researcher to formulate his theory based on what he knows at that time. These hypotheses are not chiseled in stone, they are modified or even discarded as false when additional data become known. This is not a pseudo-scientifical trick, but rather an accepted method in science.
Also there is the misconception here that hypotheses have to predict something in a narrow sense, ie, it has to have a practical use based on causality. But that is not always the case, hypotheses and theories mainly work to EXPLAIN phenomena and relations, to that end they MAY predict new laws or forces exist that govern those relations. Some hypotheses indeed have a number of qualifiers, you can see that in physics or in many other fields of science. The hypothesis is just valid within those limits and may change according to them.
In that case the hypothesis gets more specific when applied to a specific problem, that doesn't mean interpretation in the way you refer to. The hypothesis simply gets more exact and specific. If however, you apply it to a problem that is within the set borders of its validity, and the problem isn't explainable with the hypothesis or the hypothesis is not able to predict the actual outcome, then indeed it is faulty and we either have to limit its validity or discard it as wrong altogether. Whichever path will be taken depends on the actual hypothesis and its scope though. I hope this is clear now.

As for Sheldrake, his hypothesis of formative causation (and expanded theory) doesn't introduce the existence of fields that govern the way every animate, inanimate ond even abtract thing came to assume its distinct shape/organisational pattern (this term has been used in orthodox science before), rather it predicts or assumes the existence of an evolving memory that is inherent to them. This indeed answers a question that convential science hasn't been able to explain up to satisfaction. His theory tries to explain how these fields could work and reviews our whole scientific/philosophical concept in light of this possibility. Necessarily he cannot answer every question about those fields, much like in conventional physics we cannot explain why natural laws exist in the first place. They are similar in their characteristics to the transcedental archetypes or ideals of Platonic philosophy. You should question them too, if you question the scientifical viability of a morphogenetic fields posture.

However, there is no doubt that this is a serious work (although more of a philosophical nature in his advanced theory) written from a scientific point of view and it tries to encourage the use of scientific experiments to shed more light on the veracity of its position. As far as I know, a conclusive proof or counter-proof has not been presented yet, but that doesn't mean it never will. If indeed that is your only argument for considering this charlatanry or pseudo-science, it is a poor one, as logical thought would arrive at the conclusion that until such a proof is found, one has to at least assign to it the possibility of being true. And that is the incentive for conducting further studies rather than putting it ad acta.

Now, as promised, I will cite a few example experiments:

1.biology: hereditary transmission of aquired habits

Experimental series started by McDougall in Harvard in 1920, carried on by him and other scientists in Scotland and Australia over the course of some 30 years.
initial experiment:
white rats in water bassin, two exits, one lit and confers electrical shock to trespasser, one dimmed and otherwise safe. Exits properties will be swapped on the next test.
goal:
Rats should learn that it is painful to take the bright exit.
results:
Rats of first generation took 165 tries on average until they learned. subsequently quicker results, rats of 30th generation needed just 20 tries on average.
McDougall eliminated possibility of genetic selection of the most intelligent rats by taking dumbest rats as parents for the next generation. he interpreted his findings as Lamarck-ish transmission, ie modification of genes.

This wasn't accepted by other biologists, however F.A.E. Crew in Edinburgh found during repeating McDougall's tests that his rats learned faster even in the first generation, in fact they needed just ~25 tries, seemingly continuing where McDougall's left off.

W.E.Algar in Melbourne tested over the course of 50 generations of rats and 20 years and also noticed the same decrease in average learning tries, while also starting at a much lower value than McDougall did. However, they added contrlrats from other independent breeds to the experiment from time to time and also noticed an increased learning ability for this habit about them.Genetical hereditary transmission could thus be ruled out. Orthodox thinking failed to explain the process up to the time Sheldrake wrote his book.
Sheldrake's hypothesis is able to explain or predict it implicitely.
This is however no conclusive proof, also one has to grant an experimentator-effect as Sheldrake readily admits, however this effect cannot explain the whole experiment. And special note should be taken that conventional thinking cannot explain it conclusively at all.

2. Learning process of humans in light of morphic fields:

2a) nursery rhymes:

outset: one well known Japanese nursery rhyme, plus two of similar structurr provided by Japanese lyric Shuntaro Tanikawa, one of them completely meaningless, the other with a meaning.
experiment:
Experimental groups of people in UK and US who don't speak Japanese have to learn these rhymes by a fixed number of recitations.
result:
62% of the probands could remember the real rhyme best after 30 minutes had passed.
No significant discrepancy between the percentages of the senseless and the meaningful rhyme could be observed.
2nd experiment:
Verses were presented in written form to learn them optically.
result: 52% remembered the real verse best.

Using statistics here is also not a conclusive proof but it bears a hint as to what is more likely. Normally we should assume an even spread between the results if traditional explanations of learning being an independent trait are true. That would indicate that the hypothesis is failing here. Note again, other possible explanations exist, but none can explain them conclusively, therefore your main critique applies in this case to all possible explanations.

2b) Hebrew words: (Gary Schwartz, professor of Psychology, Yale University)

outset:
48 three letter words, take from the Hebrew Old Testament, 24 of which were commonly used, 24 of them rarely. For each of these words, a meaningless anagram was constructed by random permutation of the letters, thus forming 96 words.
experiment: 90 students who claimed to have no knowledge about the language whatsoever, wer e shown these words on a screen in arbitrary order. They ware asked to guess the meaning of each word, write it down alogn witha number on a scale from 0 to 4 based on how sure they were. They were not told about the purpose of the experiment, nor that half of the words are in fact random and meaningless constructs.
result:
Some students guessed the right meaning of some words, those people were left out of the analysis altogether. The Schwartz analysed the answers of the students who never guessed right. He found that people had a higher confidence in their choice if the words really existed, additionally the effect was twice as strong for the often used words compared to the seldomly used ones.
2nd experiment:
After the analysis, the professors told the participants that half of the words were in fact no real words but random constructs. He then showed them all the words again, prompting them to tell the real ones from the fake ones. Analysis of these results show indeed a random spread. The conscious choice produced different results from the subconscious one.

Again, a significant result, and you could hardly say the experiment wasn't conducted in a scientifical manner. Other explanations fail to form a more exact explanation that could go conform with orthodox theory.

I encourage you to actually read Sheldrake's works, even the one I cited from actually has just ~ 500 pages compared to my exaggerated guess I made by just looking at that tome. Doing so will enable you to directly challenge parts of his hypothesis rather than conducting it through me. :)

Papewaio

01-21-2004, 03:54

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 21 2004,04:54)]
Quote[/b] ]Chance in a strict sense is not prohibited by logic and LaPlace's demon breaks down in a pluralistic universe.

Chance is an example of something happening without a cause.
No, half-life of radioactive isotopes.

You have a chance and a cause.

Probability is part of nature, a system that can't handle that is not sufficient to tackle the deeper questions in nature.

A.Saturnus

01-21-2004, 18:40

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Jan. 21 2004,03:54)]
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 21 2004,04:54)]
Quote[/b] ]Chance in a strict sense is not prohibited by logic and LaPlace's demon breaks down in a pluralistic universe.

Chance is an example of something happening without a cause.
No, half-life of radioactive isotopes.

You have a chance and a cause.

Probability is part of nature, a system that can't handle that is not sufficient to tackle the deeper questions in nature.
It´s not a cause like I defined above. There´s no mechanism that determines the outcome completely. At some moment there must have been an action that has not been the effect of a cause.
Determinism doesn´t deny probability. Only chance in strict sense. When I throw a coin, I´ll call the outcome chance, because I couldn´t know which side would land, even though the processes involved might have been entirely deterministic. Deterministic systems can even be chaotic, the only requirement is that a current state must be followed by a certain determined future state.

A.Saturnus

01-21-2004, 18:55

Quote[/b] ]Again, a significant result, and you could hardly say the experiment wasn't conducted in a scientifical manner. Other explanations fail to form a more exact explanation that could go conform with orthodox theory.

Tell me, Brutal DLX, does Sheldrake really discuss alternative explanations? There are some that come to mind after 1 minute.
- (mainly the experiments with rats) Rosenthal-effect?
- (for those involving language) has it been checked if the real nursery rhymes had any linguistic properties that might have made them easier to remember? That would also explain why they are well known in the first place. The same for the Hebrew words. Could it be that common used hebrew words are tendentially shorter, more characteristic or in any other way different from the uncommon?
Did he mentioned that a great number of similar experiments have been done about this that didn´t find any significant effect whatsoever?

Brutal DLX

01-23-2004, 12:22

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 16 2004,22:50)]
Hm.. where to start?

Quote[/b] ]BTW, your posted battlefield-screenshots were great

Thanks, I'm glad you liked them. I aim to please.

Quote[/b] ]does Sheldrake really discuss alternative explanations? There are some that come to mind after 1 minute.
- (mainly the experiments with rats) Rosenthal-effect?
- (for those involving language) has it been checked if the real nursery rhymes had any linguistic properties that might have made them easier to remember? That would also explain why they are well known in the first place. The same for the Hebrew words. Could it be that common used hebrew words are tendentially shorter, more characteristic or in any other way different from the uncommon?
Did he mentioned that a great number of similar experiments have been done about this that didn´t find any significant effect whatsoever?

I don't know what the Rosenthal effect is, but it would have to explain the experiment in at least the same likelihood and be applicable to experiments as well ro rival or dispel his hypothesis.
Indeed he mentions different explanations and experiments, he remains sceptical throughout, he also proposes new experiments that haven't been conducted in the book I cited from, thus I didn't have reason to emntion them. Like Ludens, I recommend you to read some of his books yourself and I advise you to read them more carefully than you seem to read some of my posts, before you jump to conclusions. If you did, you would have noticed that all Hebrew words consist of 3 letters, of the Hebrew alphabet, which were presented visually, not aurally.
There is not tendential shortness here. The reason some are common is because they stand for more commonly used activities or things in daily life. They represent root words (which are all 3 letter words in Hebrew), but that is irrelevant as the students didn't know that, also there was only marginal difference between remembrance of the common and the uncommon ones, the point was that the nonsense ones were remembered least. A similar experiment was conducted using Persian words and a variation of Morse code and also typewriters. They have been conducted as part of a competition reviewed by a panel of renowned professors, and they chose to award the linguistic experiment with Hebrew words the first prize.It is highly unlikely that they haven't looked at the conduct and results with less scrutiny than you have mustered in your 1 minute of contemplation.

Now, to something completely different...

Quote[/b] ]He who doesn´t understand mathematics, stay out - motto of Aristotle´s acadamia

Quote[/b] ]Bei euch ihr Herren kann man das Wesen gewöhnlich aus dem Namen lesen, wo es sich nur all zu deutlich weist, wenn man euch Fliegengott, Verderber,
Lügner heißt

- Wenn ich nicht verliere, kann er nicht gewinnen Boris Becker, Logikexperte

Quote[/b] ]The qualities of different definitions on causality make an interesting discussion, but I fear it would exceed the frame of this thread even more. We can
discuss it when we have our own forum
I merely used Hume´s view on causality because I consider it more to the point than Aristotle´s. Whether contingency is all to causality isn´t that important to the point I was making.(..)

Quote[/b] ](...) Sorry, what is arbitrary? We discussed a epistemological/ontologic question,
not an ethical one, so I thought it would be clear determinism wasn´t meant
in an ethical sense. Sorry if that was confusing.

Of course that would lead a litte to far, but that doesn't mean that similarily deviant things haven't been discussed in the history of this thread.
It is not clear that contingency is all that is important to our discussion, it is only important to your line of argumentation. If there is more to it, then by suspendign causality, you would have to suspend these factors too, which will in all likelyhood influence your philosophical stance.
Determinism in its strictest sense isn't even applicable anymore when we look at the particle level of physical reality, as is done in quantum physics. This has an effect that ripples through the whole argumentative chain commonly used in natural science.
Determinism as used in an ethical sense is surely a viable starting point when we want to discuss the problem at hand, as abtract terms are of vital importance in our discussion and if out thoughts are influenced by outside factors on a greater scale than we acknowledge, then this plays a huge role in our objectivity when discussing. That is why I think this definition is possibly more important to the discussion, and unlike the scientific one you gave, not interpretable in different ways, albeit still open to doubt.
However, since I am not really interested in this part of the discussion centered on definitional controversies, I'm willing to drop it if there is mutual agreement. Our positions on this have been made clear and we could discuss the importance of these in another time and place.

Quote[/b] ]Whatever feelings you and Pindar have about statistics. It´s a very usefull tool and the use of it in the natural sciences is manifold, so that psychology uses it is rather are argument in favour of it´s position as a natural science.

The use of it certainly attests a scientific method, which I have never put into doubt. Yet is is ill suited to make definitive claims. To classify psychology as a science, using scientifical method alone is not enough, for the foundation of psychology is still subject to discussion as I have shown in multiple instances.

Quote[/b] ]I do not want to see scientific progress curdle because of demands for exactness beyond what is possible at the given time.

Naturally I had the feeling that this part of my statement would be taken out of context, but don't expect applause, for I did not criticise the methods but the questioning of the premises, which is common in any science and has often lead to change of paradigma. However, in most cases it was tried to verify a new assumption/theory, or new findings were made that lead to such a change.
In psychology, two different starting models have basically been in existence from the get-go, yet
one is given little or not possibility/importance at all, while at the same time both are equally as har dto prove in a conventional manner. Which leads me to your next quote in this context:

Quote[/b] ]Cognitive physicalism is - unlike parallelism - falsifyable. If you can show that minds can exist seperatedly from brains, physicalism would be refuted.
No one managed that so far. Parallelism on the other hand hasn´t made any scientific progress since Descartes. And even he realized that it´s problematic.
Hell, it seems to me that your only criterium for being unscientific is the use of statistics

It is interesting that you quote Descartes, who formulated essential parts of the materialist-mechanist worldview that your atheist stance appears to rest on.
Of course it hasn't been shown, yet the reverse is also true, certian research results of physicalism may well be falsifiable, the basic assumption of the spirit being created by the machine is neither provable in this way nor explainable to a satisfying degree. That's the point.
I could give you an analogy, since I know you like those (pixies, computers etc..) Today we imagine a radio receiver. Change or damage to a transistor within it may lead to changes in the sound you are listening to. Tuning leads to a another frequency being received.
The fact that a change to the transistor results in change of what is perceived doesn't proof that the sounds are somehow determined or programmed by the transistor. It is a necessary component, however, the origin lies in the broadcast station. The modified component is thus not a determinant for a specific program respectively certain acoustic signals on a primal level.

Quote[/b] ]As I have shown, Pindar´s point fails. The First Cause argument he uses isn´t the product of logical deduction. There was no process of deduction involved It´s only a matter of definition, and that´s not enough to prove a point. If this were different, what would stop me from defining the universe as it´s own cause?
The creation from nothingness isn´t coherent to conventional causality, that is it´s point. But since causality is not a principle of logic, that´s not a
problem. (Well, it´s a problem to imagination.) The rational elaboration is something in the line of poof There it is. As I said before, if you suspend causality, everything thinkable is possible and poof There it is is thinkable. A scientifically explanation can´t be given, since science requires causality (to a certain amount - not absolutely) and that we have suspended. What I proposed was philosophical explanation, not a scientifical one.

That's the point. While I understand your atheistic position, I will try for the last time to elaborate on the problems that arise to me when I thoroughly ponder about it.
Your atheist posture rests on rationality in phytagorean/platonic/mechanist sense, ie. it is an orthodox scientifical one. While on the one hand you explain the world using this, you simply postulate the impossibility of explaining the beginning of this world in the very same manner on the other, which is a point of essential importance that a coherent philosophical posture would have to show.
Theist posture stay coherent about and in itself as well as logical, because its logic directly (and correctly too if you assume god's existence) leads to a first cause that is explainable by the outset.
The premises certainly are a matter of definition, even belief, yet the logic that foolows is clear and simple. Because, at the end of the day, we do not know what is definitily true, we must define or postulate certian things to have a starting point. That's how it is in any philosophy, in yours as well as the one Pindar represents.
Your position accepts and uses the principles of causality and rationality until they hit the wall you erected by assumption of the creation out of nothing.
This type of genesis need not necessarily be explained in a causal manner, yet he has to be explained in a way that directly leads to the formation of causality as we know it. I fail to see that here and perhaps that's THE critical point of your posture.
If we suspend causality, and take the nothing or nothigness as a starting point, we would have to admit at the same time that at this point nothing exists, neither in a narrow nor in a conceptual sense. That means, that on the contrary, not anything thinkable is possible, simply because it doesn't exist (and neither does a entity who would think these thoughts).
But if anything like that exists in wider sense, we either couldn't talk about a nothing anymore, or we cannot claim that this point is the beginning of creation, which in turn leads to the necessity to explain the existence and generation of all conceptual models without the usage of causality or logical principles, which hardly seems possible, and that directly affects the claim of a rational best estimation.
Another thing that would have to be done is to realise and quantify the influence of these concepts on the nothing, which is not possible with scientific means as you correctly observed, simply because these means are not in existence by following your philosophy to this point
To clarify, I neither make a stand for the theist nor the atheist position, and in common daily life there is not necessity to decide for on or another, yet one has to be able to define all possible postures as clearly as possible and to make them coherent and ncompassing within themselves up to the smallest detail.
In the wake of these ponderings, it is also important to me to put the currently existing orthodox scientific view of the world into doubt, and to try and develop a new synthesis that provides a possible better explanation for all creation-related things.
Natural science and theism are still closely related, only that after Descartes and a few others the almighty properties of a being called God had been banished from the world formulas they helped to create in the first place. Yet we see the return of these under the guise of natural laws, who are transcedent and unchanging, thus just giving a new name to the same old thing. It is also of interest to this discussion to take a look at the evolution of the meaning of the term God. The biblical term has changed a lot from that time, having been modified by Thomas of Aquin, Descartes and the like, but still had an essential influence on the establishment of Western Philosophy and subsequently natural science.
A true atheistic posture would have to eliminate not only the term god, but also all different manifestations of his omnipotence, be that in the eternal natural laws or other philosophical stances. Only to use scientifical-rational methods is not enough by any means, one has to develop and evolve them from there.
Just take mathematics, for example, its current stance of formalism by and large means all mathematics is just a game without any final sense, yet most of us and most of the Mathematicians still believe they are dealing with something objective, that descriptions of mathematical processes which are true in the mathematical dimension are also a timeless truth, one that is congruent to certain areas of material and energetical elements. That is a metaphysical assumption, that even David Hume questioned, whom you like to quote so much. It is indeed more Platonic than rational in the modern sense of the word. Of course, if you define rationality in the way the ancient greeks/romans did, ie, the ability to recognise ratio or harmony, you won't run into problems. Other than the old greeks and especially the phytagoreans being mystics and theists instead of atheists.
The universe then, as for example James Jeans once put it, would have to be imagined to consist of pure thought, the thought of a mathematical thinker.

From there to the notion of God, it is but a little step.

Thanks, dessa.

er.. Brutal http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ludens

01-23-2004, 22:14

Freiherr Brutal DLX,
Thank you for giving the examples of experiments.
But these experiments are all in the past. And I thought Sheldrake had proposed some experiments which would prove (insofar that is possible) his theory? That is what you wrote in your post at 8 januari.

Quote[/b] ]As far as I know, a conclusive proof or counter-proof has not been presented yet, but that doesn't mean it never will. If indeed that is your only argument for considering this charlatanry or pseudo-science, it is a poor one, as logical thought would arrive at the conclusion that until such a proof is found, one has to at least assign to it the possibility of being true. And that is the incentive for conducting further studies rather than putting it ad acta.
I didn't say there would never be a conclusive proof or disproof of Sheldrake's theory just because there has not been one until now. I argued that it is simply impossible to disprove his theory. I cannot think of a single experiment that disproofs the existence of an evolving memory that is inherent to animate, inanimate or even abtract thing that causes it to assume its distinct shape/organisational pattern. If you search long enough you will find lots of evidence which point towards an evolving memory, but you cannot DISprove. If you cannot disprove an hypothesis, it is pseudo-science. This is basic scientiffical philosophy ever since Popper. If you think that Popper is incorrect (or that my application of Popper's rule is incorrect), please say so and explain why. Else I'll be forced to repeat this argument over and over until one of us gives up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

(The irony is that at this morning's lectures in molecular biology morforgenetic fields were mentioned. I'm rather unclear as to what the lecturer actually meant: he mentioned it only once or twice, and in a context of developmental signals (hormones), so I doubt that he meant Sheldrake's fields. But I'll be looking it up in the weekend. It must be somewhere within the next hundred pages of Molecular Biology of the Cell. ...)

A.Saturnus

01-24-2004, 23:22

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 23 2004,12:22)]I don't know what the Rosenthal effect is, but it would have to explain the experiment in at least the same likelihood and be applicable to experiments as well ro rival or dispel his hypothesis.
Ah, that means he didn´t mention it. He should have because it´s of great importance here. Rosenthal has deviced an experiment to test the influence of the experimentator. He told his assistence that he has two groups of mice. The first group was bred to be exceptionally clever while the others were exceptionally dumb. He then let the assistents test the progresses of these mice on several intellectual tasks. His assistents found that the mice from the clever group learnt MUCH faster than those of the dumb group. The thing only was, there weren´t any different groups of mice. Ordinary mice were distributed randomly over the two groups. The assistents only thought that some mice were clever, but they were in fact all the same. Still the mice of the clever group learnt much faster...
This effect has also shown to be present for tests on humans.

Quote[/b] ]There is not tendential shortness here. The reason some are common is because they stand for more commonly used activities or things in daily life. They represent root words (which are all 3 letter words in Hebrew), but that is irrelevant as the students didn't know that, also there was only marginal difference between remembrance of the common and the uncommon ones, the point was that the nonsense ones were remembered least. A similar experiment was conducted using Persian words and a variation of Morse code and also typewriters. They have been conducted as part of a competition reviewed by a panel of renowned professors, and they chose to award the linguistic experiment with Hebrew words the first prize.It is highly unlikely that they haven't looked at the conduct and results with less scrutiny than you have mustered in your 1 minute of contemplation.

Ok, seems decently done. So it has only to cope with the counter-evidence. BTW, are you aware that this is all statistical evidence http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]It is not clear that contingency is all that is important to our discussion, it is only important to your line of argumentation. If there is more to it, then by suspendign causality, you would have to suspend these factors too, which will in all likelyhood influence your philosophical stance.
Determinism in its strictest sense isn't even applicable anymore when we look at the particle level of physical reality, as is done in quantum physics. This has an effect that ripples through the whole argumentative chain commonly used in natural science.
Determinism as used in an ethical sense is surely a viable starting point when we want to discuss the problem at hand, as abtract terms are of vital importance in our discussion and if out thoughts are influenced by outside factors on a greater scale than we acknowledge, then this plays a huge role in our objectivity when discussing. That is why I think this definition is possibly more important to the discussion, and unlike the scientific one you gave, not interpretable in different ways, albeit still open to doubt.

Hey, the context in which I used determinism was the usefullness of Aristotle´s four causes. What does that have to do with the rest? What does it have to do with ethics?

Quote[/b] ]Of course it hasn't been shown, yet the reverse is also true, certian research results of physicalism may well be falsifiable, the basic assumption of the spirit being created by the machine is neither provable in this way nor explainable to a satisfying degree. That's the point.
I could give you an analogy, since I know you like those (pixies, computers etc..) Today we imagine a radio receiver. Change or damage to a transistor within it may lead to changes in the sound you are listening to. Tuning leads to a another frequency being received.
The fact that a change to the transistor results in change of what is perceived doesn't proof that the sounds are somehow determined or programmed by the transistor. It is a necessary component, however, the origin lies in the broadcast station. The modified component is thus not a determinant for a specific program respectively certain acoustic signals on a primal level.

An interesting analogy. Well suited to show my point. Let´s compare two theories about radios.
Physicalism: the apparent ability of the radio to produce sound that is generated from transmitted information is entirely due to it´s physical structur. The components of the radio, which we can see and, if we like to, take out of the radio, produce a device that is able to do as we observe. There´s no single component that is alone responsible for the function of the radio but the interaction of the right set of components. Nothing more than these components and there interactions are required.
Spiritualism: it´s necessary to have the functioning components, but not enough. A soul is also required to make a radio work. No soul, no sound. All radios we know have souls. We cannot see souls or measure them in any way, but they are there. Inside the radio. And they are a necessary part for the radio.
Now which of these theories is more likely? Which is scientifical?
Physicalism can be tested. It can be falsified. If it´s possible to take out necessary parts of the radio with reducing it´s ability to receive radio programs and produce sound, it´s refuted. If a radio has all necessary physical components but still doesn´t work, it´s refuted. Now tell me a way to refute spiritualism.
The physicalism of the brain is the same as the physicalism of the radio. It can be refuted. Not only it´s research results but the very basic assumptions. Show me a spirit without a functioning brain and physicalism is refuted. Show me the specialness of soulless people with intact brains and physicalism is refuted. Now tell me a way to refute dualism.

Quote[/b] ]I fail to see that here and perhaps that's THE critical point of your posture.

Yep, this indeed seems to be the case.

Quote[/b] ]Your position accepts and uses the principles of causality and rationality until they hit the wall you erected by assumption of the creation out of nothing.

Why do you say that? The rationality definitely doesn´t hit the wall I erected. As I said before, creation out of nothing does not contradict logic Causality does not follow from rationality. Causality is an additional assumption we make. If you deny that, prove that rationality implies causality. Unless you do that, please do not call me irrational.

Quote[/b] ]Theist posture stay coherent about and in itself as well as logical, because its logic directly (and correctly too if you assume god's existence) leads to a first cause that is explainable by the outset.

I try to make the reasoning against that as clear as possible. The problem is that we do not know how Being came to be. Our premise is:
1)every X must have a cause that is not X
Now the obvious problem with this is the cause for the sum of all X´s. It obviously cannot be part of the sum of all X´s, otherwise it would violate the premise. But there cannot something that is not part of the sum because the sum includes everything. More precisely:
2)there cannot be a X that is not part of the class A which is the sum of all X´s
That follows from the premise.
Now the theist solution is to postulate q which is defined as the cause of Y. It is also defined as having no need for a cause. It is in itself not the effect of another cause. This is a violation of 1 except if you say it´s itself not part of A, in which case it´s a violation of 2.

As I said before: the possibility of the definition of a First Cause does not imply the possibility of a First Cause.
I can demonstrate that with an example. Let´s see our premise is that all space is Euclidian. From that follows that all triangles must have angles that sum up to pi. It´s still possible to define something that is a triangle with a sum of angles >pi. But it follows from our premise that such a hyperbolic triangle can´t exist. It´s impossible.
The only way to make it possible is to drop the premise.
In the case of the First Cause this would mean that the necessity for everything to have a cause other than itself does no longer apply. Which is indeed also my point. I´m saying some X´s can come to be without having a cause. This can of course also save the First Cause. But when we already dropped the premise there´s no need anymore for a First Cause, or rather the Big Bang can be First Cause enough. There´s no need to go beyond that.
The only reason some do that is because they want, for god´s sake (literally http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ), a First Cause other than the Big Bang.

Quote[/b] ]If we suspend causality, and take the nothing or nothigness as a starting point, we would have to admit at the same time that at this point nothing exists, neither in a narrow nor in a conceptual sense. That means, that on the contrary, not anything thinkable is possible, simply because it doesn't exist (and neither does a entity who would think these thoughts).

The reason why you don´t understand it is that you try to impose causality on acausality. It´s not some object or state called nothingness that causes Being. There wasn´t some moment in time when nothing existed and than this nothing turned into Being. No, Being - and that includes time itself - has no cause. That´s why the question what came before doesn´t apply.

Quote[/b] ]A true atheistic posture would have to eliminate not only the term god, but also all different manifestations of his omnipotence, be that in the eternal natural laws or other philosophical stances. Only to use scientifical-rational methods is not enough by any means, one has to develop and evolve them from there.
Just take mathematics, for example, its current stance of formalism by and large means all mathematics is just a game without any final sense, yet most of us and most of the Mathematicians still believe they are dealing with something objective, that descriptions of mathematical processes which are true in the mathematical dimension are also a timeless truth, one that is congruent to certain areas of material and energetical elements. That is a metaphysical assumption, that even David Hume questioned, whom you like to quote so much. It is indeed more Platonic than rational in the modern sense of the word. Of course, if you define rationality in the way the ancient greeks/romans did, ie, the ability to recognise ratio or harmony, you won't run into problems. Other than the old greeks and especially the phytagoreans being mystics and theists instead of atheists.

Are you saying a true atheist would have to be nominalist? If so, no problem for me.
All this fuss about universalia is due to the broad use of the word existence I have criticized earlier. Abstract entities do not exist. So there is no need for Platon´s crazy world of ideas. And it also doesn´t change anything about there objectivity. The rules of chess are also objective. Mathematics are pretty much like that. Now it´s of course a bit more difficult to show how physical laws pass into this view.

Quote[/b] ]Wenn ich nicht verliere, kann er nicht gewinnen Boris Becker, Logikexperte

To bad for you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Brutal DLX

01-26-2004, 10:59

Saturnus, I am getting the impression that you only read what you want to read. Discussion at this level is unacceptable. How many times do I have to repeat myself because you didn't take time to read carefully what I wrote?

Quote[/b] ]Ah, that means he didn´t mention it. He should have because it´s of great importance here. Rosenthal has deviced an experiment to test the influence of the experimentator. He told his assistence that he has two groups of mice. The first group was bred to be exceptionally clever while the others were exceptionally dumb. He then let the assistents test the progresses of these mice on several intellectual tasks. His assistents found that the mice from the clever group learnt MUCH faster than those of the dumb group. The thing only was, there weren´t any different groups of mice. Ordinary mice were distributed randomly over the two groups. The assistents only thought that some mice were clever, but they were in fact all the same. Still the mice of the clever group learnt much faster...
This effect has also shown to be present for tests on humans.

In my original post, I mentioned that Sheldrake didn't rule out the experinmentator effect, although he didn't call it Rosenthal effect. I suppose that these are similar. Since you know what is, I assume again you didn't read my original post carefully. The rat experiment may be explained by this, but the first stage is still open to speculation, because the methods weren't changed and there is hardly anything the experimentator can do (even subcosciously) to influence the experiment. The human tests I cited wouldn't fall under this aspect as no mention whatsoever about the difficulty or learning curve of the tests was made beforehand. It could serve to explain why the 2nd phase led to equally distributed pattern.
I do recognise this is statistical evidence, but despite your sarcasm I never refuted the usefulness of this method. It is no absolute proof, but it is encouraging future research.
I can only again recommend you to read his works yourself before you pass judgments. There are many more experiments cited in there, if that's what you are looking. I recognise you may not have the time to read it now, but neither do I have the time to explain it or dispel any of your misconceptions about it.

Quote[/b] ]An interesting analogy. Well suited to show my point. Let´s compare two theories about radios.
Physicalism: the apparent ability of the radio to produce sound that is generated from transmitted information is entirely due to it´s physical structur. The components of the radio, which we can see and, if we like to, take out of the radio, produce a device that is able to do as we observe. There´s no single component that is alone responsible for the function of the radio but the interaction of the right set of components. Nothing more than these components and there interactions are required.
Spiritualism: it´s necessary to have the functioning components, but not enough. A soul is also required to make a radio work. No soul, no sound. All radios we know have souls. We cannot see souls or measure them in any way, but they are there. Inside the radio. And they are a necessary part for the radio.
Now which of these theories is more likely? Which is scientifical?
Physicalism can be tested. It can be falsified. If it´s possible to take out necessary parts of the radio with reducing it´s ability to receive radio programs and produce sound, it´s refuted. If a radio has all necessary physical components but still doesn´t work, it´ s refuted. Now tell me a way to refute spiritualism.
The physicalism of the brain is the same as the physicalism of the radio. It can be refuted. Not only it´s research results but the very basic assumptions. Show me a spirit without a functioning brain and physicalism is refuted. Show me the specialness of soulless people with intact brains and physicalism is refuted. Now tell me a way to refute dualism.

You showed your point, I understood it before. It goes awry on a couple of points. Firstly, your definition of physicalism includes transmitted information which is neither physical nor contained in the radio components. You have to define the radio making sound without that outside influence to make it distinct from spiritualism. Let's assume we correct that definition. Then, secondly, if you remove components from the radio such that it fails to work, you have proven that these components are necessary for the sound being heard. Not more. Thirdly, to refute spiritualism and prove physicalism you need to turn off the broadcast station and then check if your radio still produces sound. That is the only way and it is at the moment impossible to the same with the brain. Thus, we have to assume probability of both views, ie. dualism. This is not the case in psychology as you described it to me. Perhaps I misunderstood this part, if I did, then it is still problematic, but a problem identified is a problem whose influence can be identified and dealt with.

Quote[/b] ]Hey, the context in which I used determinism was the usefullness of Aristotle´s four causes. What does that have to do with the rest? What does it have to do with ethics?

Not much indeed, other than even Aristotle was influence by ethics when he formulated his theories. Besides that, I was thinking the discussion about definitions arose on a general level where either you or Pindar (I can't remember at the moment) were asking off which definitions we are working of. If that wasn't the case, then my apologies for adding confusion, but my claim for the possible application of my definitions on a general scale to this topic still stands.

Quote[/b] ]Why do you say that? The rationality definitely doesn´t hit the wall I erected. As I said before, creation out of nothing does not contradict logic Causality does not follow from rationality. Causality is an additional assumption we make. If you deny that, prove that rationality implies causality. Unless you do that, please do not call me irrational.

Never in my posts did I call you irrational. So please don't accuse me of things I didn't say or write. Every rational thinker has assumed causality as a basic principle of the world we live in. Rationality doesn't cause causality, but rationality allows us to discern the things that happen around us and to link them to one another. Rationality lets us see cause and effect, so, causality isn't a logical effect of rationality per se but it is our tool that we use to give the causal relations a name. Causality exists now and probably has since there was being. Creation out of nothing doesn't contradict logic if you can provide a logical link between nothing and being. In your later statements your argumentation seems to change as such that you discard nothingness as not needed anymore. (
Quote[/b] ]The reason why you don´t understand it is that you try to impose causality on acausality. It´s not some object or state called nothingness that causes Being. There wasn´t some moment in time when nothing existed and than this nothing turned into Being. No, Being - and that includes time itself - has no cause. That´s why the question what came before doesn´t apply.)
So what will it be? Creation from nothing or being that has no cause? You cannot have both in your posture. Logic means a lawful connection between two things.

Quote[/b] ]I try to make the reasoning against that as clear as possible. The problem is that we do not know how Being came to be. Our premise is:
1)every X must have a cause that is not X
Now the obvious problem with this is the cause for the sum of all X´s. It obviously cannot be part of the sum of all X´s, otherwise it would violate the premise. But there cannot something that is not part of the sum because the sum includes everything. More precisely:
2)there cannot be a X that is not part of the class A which is the sum of all X´s
That follows from the premise.
Now the theist solution is to postulate q which is defined as the cause of Y. It is also defined as having no need for a cause. It is in itself not the effect of another cause. This is a violation of 1 except if you say it´s itself not part of A, in which case it´s a violation of 2.

As I said before: the possibility of the definition of a First Cause does not imply the possibility of a First Cause.
I can demonstrate that with an example. Let´s see our premise is that all space is Euclidian. From that follows that all triangles must have angles that sum up to pi. It´s still possible to define something that is a triangle with a sum of angles >pi. But it follows from our premise that such a hyperbolic triangle can´t exist. It´s impossible.
The only way to make it possible is to drop the premise.
In the case of the First Cause this would mean that the necessity for everything to have a cause other than itself does no longer apply. Which is indeed also my point. I´m saying some X´s can come to be without having a cause. This can of course also save the First Cause. But when we already dropped the premise there´s no need anymore for a First Cause, or rather the Big Bang can be First Cause enough. There´s no need to go beyond that.
The only reason some do that is because they want, for god´s sake (literally ), a First Cause other than the Big Bang.

The Theist position as I understand it postulates that there are X's who are related by causality. And there is a first X that caused itself. This is important to the Theist position. If we assume this premise, the logical chain stands. Theists postulate that the first X is its own cause and always existed. It has special properties that enabled it to cause other X's, as well as giving them the ability to cause specific other X's whose relations are governed by an X called causality.
Theists include the abstract entities in class A of all X's.
The possibility of a definition doesn't imply the possibility of a First cause, but the definition was made because there is reason (possibility) to think a First cause might exist, and that is because the way Theists understand causality as a logical chain that leads to a starting point. Your example is a bit misleading as its premise assumes a thing we know is false to be right. Space isn't two dimensional, and as you show the definition is false. You cannot say the same for the assumption the Theists make, we do not know it is obviously false. The assumption that there is a first thing is an extrapolation which is possible as we do not know if the causal chain is infinite or not. In fact, if you argued that there is infinite causal chain, that would bolster your atheist position, but then you would need to either deny the creation from nothing or need to causally explain the process, which you didn't do as of right now.
Futhermore, you can't be serious in saying that the Big Bang should be enough of a First cause then and there's no need to go beyond. That's arbitrary. If this model of thought is accurate, nobody would be looking for a First cause in the first place, but you cannot deny the need of progress backwards along that infinite chain as it would further our knowledge and that is need enough in itself.

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying a true atheist would have to be nominalist? If so, no problem for me.
All this fuss about universalia is due to the broad use of the word existence I have criticized earlier. Abstract entities do not exist. So there is no need for Platon´s crazy world of ideas. And it also doesn´t change anything about there objectivity. The rules of chess are also objective. Mathematics are pretty much like that. Now it´s of course a bit more difficult to show how physical laws pass into this view.

I am saying exactly what I was saying in my statement. Yet I leave the interpretation up to you even if you think there are so many possible interpretations to it.

So, abstract entities do not exist? Try telling that to a solipsist, and he will think he's losing his mind. And his world. Heh.
What are they, then? Things that don't exist, yet they are objective. Ideas we don't need but they objectively keep the world running. Why can we give them a name and why do they have an effect on other entities? Are they eternal or do they vanish when we don't think of them? Where do they fit in in your master plan? And how can a non-existant thing cause an existing one?

Quote[/b] ]To bad for you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Why? I am not identical to Boris Becker. I thought you gathered as much over the course of our conversation in this topic.

A.Saturnus

01-27-2004, 23:28

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 26 2004,10:59)]In my original post, I mentioned that Sheldrake didn't rule out the experinmentator effect, although he didn't call it Rosenthal effect. I suppose that these are similar. Since you know what is, I assume again you didn't read my original post carefully. The rat experiment may be explained by this, but the first stage is still open to speculation, because the methods weren't changed and there is hardly anything the experimentator can do (even subcosciously) to influence the experiment. The human tests I cited wouldn't fall under this aspect as no mention whatsoever about the difficulty or learning curve of the tests was made beforehand. It could serve to explain why the 2nd phase led to equally distributed pattern.
I do recognise this is statistical evidence, but despite your sarcasm I never refuted the usefulness of this method. It is no absolute proof, but it is encouraging future research.
I can only again recommend you to read his works yourself before you pass judgments. There are many more experiments cited in there, if that's what you are looking. I recognise you may not have the time to read it now, but neither do I have the time to explain it or dispel any of your misconceptions about it.
Ok, maybe I have to apologize. I didn´t read your post careful because it was directed at Ludens and I just wanted to make a side remark and not mix it with our discussion. It would have been better not to comment or to do it right.
So Sheldrake does mention the Rosenthal-effect, but says it couldn´t explain the whole experiment. Why? I would also say that it is also appliable to the other experiments, although to lesser extend.
I don´t think I´m going to read Sheldrake. My friend, who has much more insight in the biological aspects, gave me reason to think that it´s not worth a read. I trust him. That means I have to admit that I cannot refute him.

Quote[/b] ]You showed your point, I understood it before. It goes awry on a couple of points. Firstly, your definition of physicalism includes transmitted information which is neither physical nor contained in the radio components. You have to define the radio making sound without that outside influence to make it distinct from spiritualism. Let's assume we correct that definition. Then, secondly, if you remove components from the radio such that it fails to work, you have proven that these components are necessary for the sound being heard. Not more. Thirdly, to refute spiritualism and prove physicalism you need to turn off the broadcast station and then check if your radio still produces sound. That is the only way and it is at the moment impossible to the same with the brain. Thus, we have to assume probability of both views, ie. dualism. This is not the case in psychology as you described it to me. Perhaps I misunderstood this part, if I did, then it is still problematic, but a problem identified is a problem whose influence can be identified and dealt with.

Firstly. A jokebox then? I don´t think it makes much difference for my point. I never said the brain receives any transmitted signal.
Secondly. Yes, we can define what components are necessary to produce the sound. That´s everything we wanna do. If we take out components that are predicted to be necessary by physicalism and the radio (or the jokebox if you prefer that) still works. Physicalism is refuted.
Thirdly. You said it yourself. We cannot refute spiritualism. Physicalism can be refuted. Therefore physicalism is a scientifical theory while spiritualism is not.

Quote[/b] ]
Not much indeed, other than even Aristotle was influence by ethics when he formulated his theories. Besides that, I was thinking the discussion about definitions arose on a general level where either you or Pindar (I can't remember at the moment) were asking off which definitions we are working of. If that wasn't the case, then my apologies for adding confusion, but my claim for the possible application of my definitions on a general scale to this topic still stands.

I accept your apologies as well as your claim.

Quote[/b] ]
Never in my posts did I call you irrational. So please don't accuse me of things I didn't say or write. Every rational thinker has assumed causality as a basic principle of the world we live in. Rationality doesn't cause causality, but rationality allows us to discern the things that happen around us and to link them to one another. Rationality lets us see cause and effect, so, causality isn't a logical effect of rationality per se but it is our tool that we use to give the causal relations a name. Causality exists now and probably has since there was being. Creation out of nothing doesn't contradict logic if you can provide a logical link between nothing and being. In your later statements your argumentation seems to change as such that you discard nothingness as not needed anymore.

You seemed to imply that my position is in contradiction with rationality. That is an accusation of irrationality.
That every rational thinker had assumed causality as a basic principle of the world we live in is untrue, unless you say all who do not aren´t rational, which would then be petitio principii. Rationality doesn´t let us see cause and effect, it let´s us guess it. That causality exists now is an assumption (one we all make), that it all always has as well.
Why should I have to provide a link between nothing and being? When you claim that creation out of nothing contradicts logic, you should be able to present a deductive proof that it does so. Do that, and we can get over with it. I also never said nothingness would be needed.

Quote[/b] ]So what will it be? Creation from nothing or being that has no cause? You cannot have both in your posture. Logic means a lawful connection between two things.

A play of words. When I say I´m afraid of nothing, do you wonder what this nothing might be? Nothing is not a thing.

Quote[/b] ]The Theist position as I understand it postulates that there are X's who are related by causality. And there is a first X that caused itself. This is important to the Theist position. If we assume this premise, the logical chain stands. Theists postulate that the first X is its own cause and always existed. It has special properties that enabled it to cause other X's, as well as giving them the ability to cause specific other X's whose relations are governed by an X called causality.

This is an interesting formulation. If we analyse it, we must come to the conclusion that the First Cause is a premise. At least that is what you said. You said if we assume this premise refering to there is a first X that caused itself. If you take up the First Cause as a premise, there´s no point arguing about it and your position becomes petitio principii. But I grant you that it was probably a slip of the tongue. This position you describe denies what I described as premise 1. One can do so, but what then is the point in postulating the First Cause? What is it needed for. When it´s already possible that something can be it´s own cause, the whole Parmenidian problem disappears. In other words, when you drop this premise then your logical chain stands, I do not deny this, but then the same problem also disappears for atheism and you cannot longer say that theism has an advantage over atheism.

Quote[/b] ]Futhermore, you can't be serious in saying that the Big Bang should be enough of a First cause then and there's no need to go beyond. That's arbitrary. If this model of thought is accurate, nobody would be looking for a First cause in the first place, but you cannot deny the need of progress backwards along that infinite chain as it would further our knowledge and that is need enough in itself.

It´s as serious as saying god is the First Cause, because that´s arbitrary as well. I don´t think there´s an infinite chain and the Big Bang comes in handy.

Quote[/b] ]So, abstract entities do not exist? Try telling that to a solipsist, and he will think he's losing his mind. And his world. Heh.
What are they, then? Things that don't exist, yet they are objective. Ideas we don't need but they objectively keep the world running. Why can we give them a name and why do they have an effect on other entities? Are they eternal or do they vanish when we don't think of them? Where do they fit in in your master plan? And how can a non-existant thing cause an existing one?

No solipsist can ever be right, unless it´s his name.
Abstract entities are abstract constructs. Therefore their name. That they are objective and we can give them names doesn´t mean they exist. They are neither eternal nor do they vanish because they don´t exist. In how far they can 'cause' something, is a more difficult issue. I wouldn´t say that they actually cause anything, but it´s of course true that they can have influence on us. One could say that they 'guide' causation. They don´t appear as things that cause anything, it´s rather so that there are no other possibilities for causality to happen than in accordance with them. This all makes of course only sense under the narrow definition of 'existence'.

Quote[/b] ]
Why? I am not identical to Boris Becker. I thought you gathered as much over the course of our conversation in this topic.

But Brutal DLX, I don´t have any conclusive proof that your not Boris Becker. The question whether you are Boris Becker or not is an ontological one, applying scientifical methods to it would be a category mistake. Or are you saying that it would be the rational estimation? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

A.Saturnus

01-28-2004, 22:32

Oh, I wanted to add that this is my last post in this thread. It has been a very good discussion. You and Pindar have posed very good attacks against my position, though I think I made a good stand too. This could go on for all eternity. I think, we have made our points clear and no one will convince the other of his opinion. It´s up to the readers now, to decide who had the better arguments.
Add to that that I won´t have much time in the next weeks. You can answer my last post and I will read it, but I won´t answer, at least not in this thread.

Pindar

01-29-2004, 01:32

Sorry for the abscence, I was traveling.

Quote[/b] ]This contains a circular argument: that there is a point when there was no-Being that subesquently came to 'be' is to assume a mechanism whereby this change of affairs was brought about
The necessity to assume a mechanism implicitly implicates causality.

That was the point.

Quote[/b] ]If there´s no causality, such a mechanism is not required. I´m not saying that a state of non-being turned into being but that being came to exist without a cause, without a mechanism.
And this is the accounting as to how it occurs. And it attacks the critical point to your position.

This is not an accounting, but an asscertion. I asked for a straight forward explanation as to how this occurs. How does Being come from non-Being?

Quote[/b] ]Ad verecundium is an irrelevant appeal to authorities.

I quoted you the basic definition of Ad Verecundium. The source was Copy, the standard text for logic in the English speaking world. An appeal to authority is not in and of itself a fallacy. The fallacy only exists in a misplaced appeal: i.e. appealing to a poet to ground an economic position.

Quote[/b] ]That Aristotle has thought a certain thing doesn´t make it true.
BTW, I´m not the first thinker who attacks the First Cause argument. In fact, Russell surely wasn´t convinced by it. And he being an authority of logic is hardly disputed.

This statement I think, demonstrates part of the problem: logic isn't about truth, but validity. Disagreeing with Aristotle's metaphysic is not at issue, but whether he committed a logical fallacy or not which was your claim. Russell didn't like coherence models, but his commitment to empiricism did not mean he claimed Aristotle didn't understand basic logic.

Quote[/b] ]BTW, it´s absurd to say Aristotle invented logic. If so, logical thought would have been impossible for Parmenides and Sokrates. Aristotle invented a formal logic.

Your sense for intellectual history is wrong. Logic is a formal system by definition. Prior to Aristotle there was no formal system of logical thought. Parmenides, Plato etc thought along rational lines, but there was no logical system for them to appeal to. The same could be said of the Greek invention of geometry. This recognition does not mean engineering did not exist prior to the Greeks, but that the Greeks were the people that formalized a geometric system.

Quote[/b] ]I´m not asking for the wife of a bachelor, but you have to realize that some definitions can lead to absurd consequenses. If we start with the assumption that everything needs a cause, the definition of something that doesn´t is an absurdity cause it´s already ruled out by the premise.

Your very position is a lovely example of this type of absurdity. You claim everything needs a cause yet Being itself under your system has no cause. Further, you have presented no reason why your definition should be accepted over any other.

Quote[/b] ]I think that many thinkers of the Western Tradition had a bias in applying logic.

The same might be said of you.

Quote[/b] ]Even though I understand the idealist position, it still stands that from the idea of an object the existence of this object cannot be derived. From the possibility of a definition of a First Cause doesn´t follow the possibility of a First Cause.

The above seems a bit convoluted. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your point is that possibility does not equal actuality, I agree. By that same recognition, possibility does not mean abscence either.

Quote[/b] ]My attachment to causality as the standard for existence is indeed interesting. I´m not sure, but I think the thought how I propose it is quite new.

Actually, I have seen this view several times. It usually shows up with second year philosophy undergrads. Defining existence according to cause or extension or measurability has a certain merit, but also suffers from an ad hoc quality.

Quote[/b] ]My point wasn´t pragmatical. I´m not a pragmatist. You possibly thought so because I said I´ve a pragmatic view on the problem of causality, but that´s another context.

You may not be a pragmatist, but your system is. There are only three types of knowledge claims that exist: coherence, correspondence and instrumental. You view is not a coherence system given the appeal to experience. It is not a correspondence view given the recognition of a possible contrary conclusion. It does appear to be a standard instrumentalist approach however, given the stress on effect and probablitiy results. As such, it suffers from the same difficulties of a pragamtic approach which I have already described and consequently fails as an epistemic.

Quote[/b] ]So what you´re saying is that every knowledge claim must have probability 1 to be one?

Sorry, I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Quote[/b] ]When I´m saying that the sun will rise tomorrow I consider this as a knowledge claim. Of course I can´t be sure that it will happen. The probability is not 1. All our knowledge about the world is probabilistic, since natural science cannot reach truth. Scientists don´t accept a certain theory because it´s undeniable proven, but because it´s likelyhood is to great to deny it. It´s a scepticist position not to accept a certain view just because the probability can´t reach 1. Knowledge isn´t the same as truth.

Our discussion is not about science but logic. This confusion is perhaps one of the reasons for the disconnect. Given this above flurry, what is your definition of knowledge?

You have claimed:

Athiesm is the only rational position.
Being comes from non-being.
The basic understanding of logic is invalid.
The Western Tradition is bias regarding logic.
Existence is dependent on a causality that itself does not exist.
Probability is sufficient for existence claims.
Knowledge isn't tied to truth.

You seem to be drifting farther and farther away from the rational traditon.

Pindar

01-29-2004, 01:39

Quote[/b] ]Oh, I wanted to add that this is my last post in this thread. It has been a very good discussion. You and Pindar have posed very good attacks against my position, though I think I made a good stand too. This could go on for all eternity. I think, we have made our points clear and no one will convince the other of his opinion. It´s up to the readers now, to decide who had the better arguments.
Add to that that I won´t have much time in the next weeks. You can answer my last post and I will read it, but I won´t answer, at least not in this thread.

I think you must have posted this while I was typing my other post. It was not my intention to simply throw in a last word. In any case, I will give you points for rational bravado. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Gregoshi

01-29-2004, 09:53

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Well folks, if this is indeed the end, I feel the need to commend each of you for your outstanding conduct during this marathon debate. This is a fine example about how civilized discourse should be. I will not pretend I read every post to a level of understand as I lacked the time and knowledge of much of the subject matter. However, I did read it for general tone of the discussion. For as long as this debate went on, I only recall once, maybe twice, in recent weeks where some slight offense was taken - and the offender responded by being apologetic and reconciliatory to the offendee. Simply outstanding

The principles these last few weeks were:
A.Saturnus
Brutal DLX
Ludens
Papewaio
Pindar

with on occasional guest poster thrown into the mix. Did I miss any other of the major players?

I feel like you all earned a medal, or at least a sticker. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif Alas, all I can give you is a big THANK YOU Oh, and a pat on the back... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Teutonic Knight

01-29-2004, 15:50

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Jan. 29 2004,03:53)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Well folks, if this is indeed the end, I feel the need to commend each of you for your outstanding conduct during this marathon debate. This is a fine example about how civilized discourse should be. I will not pretend I read every post to a level of understand as I lacked the time and knowledge of much of the subject matter. However, I did read it for general tone of the discussion. For as long as this debate went on, I only recall once, maybe twice, in recent weeks where some slight offense was taken - and the offender responded by being apologetic and reconciliatory to the offendee. Simply outstanding

The principles these last few weeks were:
A.Saturnus
Brutal DLX
Ludens
Papewaio
Pindar

with on occasional guest poster thrown into the mix. Did I miss any other of the major players?

I feel like you all earned a medal, or at least a sticker. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif Alas, all I can give you is a big THANK YOU Oh, and a pat on the back... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
great so now you can delete this so I won't feel so dumb any more?

(j/k)

Goofball

01-31-2004, 05:01

Quote[/b] (Archlight @ Sep. 16 2003,18:34)]
Quote[/b] ]1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?

I do have a sense of morality and it is based on my interactions with human beings as well as the influence of my parents. I know that I have done things that have hurt people in the past, whether mentally/emotionally or physically(never seriously) and even just seeing the look on their face makes me feel so terrible I can barely stand it. How would I feel if I were that person? There is one of the christian tenents I actually agree with. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I know that not everyone will live by that, but that is my personal choice. Maybe I could be considered weak because of it, but at least I can live with myself. I suppose this answers #2 partly as well.

Quote[/b] ]In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.

Anarchy my or may not result as those with the same moral convictions would group together and not accept the actions of those they considered amoral. If there are large enough groups, then there would most likely be nations formed based on these ideals. Just like the Constitution could be likened to the morals of the United States in general.

Quote[/b] ]Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System?

Just because someone does not believe in God does not automatically mean they believe in their government. I myself feel that our government is broken and in need of fixing. Going about that is another matter. So along these lines I guess I'm just a faithless cur.

Quote[/b] ]Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?

It's called capital punishment(the death penalty). People oppose it, but I say to the religious fundamentalists that oppose it, Isn't it just speeding that person to God's Judgement? If we're wrong about the person, well then he'll go to heaven.... On a more secular note, at least that person will never commit those crimes again. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... On the prison subject. Our prisons here aren't prisons, they're summer camps for thugs. If they're going to prison it should be PRISON No TV, no books, no conjugal visits, no extensive workout facilities. I say hard labor if they want to get into shape.

Quote[/b] ]It's called capital punishment(the death penalty). People oppose it, but I say to the religious fundamentalists that oppose it, Isn't it just speeding that person to God's Judgement? If we're wrong about the person, well then he'll go to heaven.... On a more secular note, at least that person will never commit those crimes again.

That is an excellent argument. It ranks right up there with trial by fire, and the old practice of throwing suspected witches off of cliffs. If the accused was a witch, she would have to reveal herself by showing her powers and flying. If she was innocent, then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif

Listen to yourself for a minute

The thing to realize when thinking about capital punishment, is that no judicial system is perfect, mistakes are always going to be made (for you Americans out there, I would suggest you take a look at recent judicial events in Chicago for an example of what I am talking about). If you lock someone up for the rest of their life, they pose just as little danger of reoffending than if you murder, oops, sorry, I mean execute them. But guess what? If, later on, you find out you got the wrong guy, you can always just appologize and let him out of prison, which is an option that is removed with capital punishment.

I can't remember the source of this quote, but it mirrors my feelings on the matter:

I would rather see a thousand guilty men go free, than see one innocent man be put to death.