Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Me (Reply 29074):

Vladdo (Reply 29075):

You just couldn’t make this shooting yourself in the foot stuff up.

Priceless!

All you had to do Hillside, was to accuse someone of being a Troll for your Brown stripy minty humbug to be exposed.....and you went right ahead and did it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

All you had to do Hillside, was to accuse someone of being a Troll for your Brown stripy minty humbug to be exposed.....and you went right ahead and did it.

Except of course the bit you conveniently missed out is that I also explained at some length why your behaviour is that of a troll. I notice by the way that you didn't even bother denying it. Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Except of course the bit you conveniently missed out is that I also explained at some length why your behaviour is that of a troll. I notice by the way that you didn't even bother denying it. Why is that?

I'm prepared for people to come to their own judgment. I expect your wee wizards to toe the party line.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I'm prepared for people to come to their own judgment.

They already have. That's your problem.

I expect your wee wizards to toe the party line.

I don't have any "wee wizards", and the only "party line" is wherever the reasoning happens to lead - which is why you always crash and burn, leaving you with nothing but the behaviour I (and Wiki) described a few posts ago.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Do you even know what the "argument from personal incredulity" means?

What possible relevance do you think your personal failure to see something has to arguing for epistemic truths for others?

I am arguing from the point of view that it is a logical impossibility

[Nearly Sane]

I am arguing from the point of view that it is a logical impossibility

No, you are simply asserting it to be impossible. You are neither arguing nor being logical.

[Alan Burns]

No, you are simply asserting it to be impossible. You are neither arguing nor being logical.

So I will ask again:
How can a deterministically controlled emergent property of material entities can be accused of being mistaken?

The accusation refers to a personal entity which must have the ability to be not mistaken in order to be the subject of the accusation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am arguing from the point of view that it is a logical impossibility

That's not an argument - its just "a point of view" to use your own words. To be logically impossible you'd have to explain WHY its logically impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So I will ask again:
How can a deterministically controlled emergent property of material entities can be accused of being mistaken?

The accusation refers to a personal entity which must have the ability to be not mistaken in order to be the subject of the accusation.

You can ask that if you like, and you can be given an answer to it too. The fact that you don't know though and therefore think your ignorance allows you to drop in "god", "soul" etc as the answer is just the argument from personal incredulity again.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can ask that if you like, and you can be given an answer to it too. The fact that you don't know though and therefore think your ignorance allows you to drop in "god", "soul" etc as the answer is just the argument from personal incredulity again.

But what precisely is personal about a deterministically controlled emergent property of material entities?  Is there a guilty electron perhaps?

[torridon]

But what precisely is personal about a deterministically controlled emergent property of material entities?  Is there a guilty electron perhaps?

Put a slice of lemon peel under an electron microscope.  It won't be made of yellow electrons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what precisely is personal about a deterministically controlled emergent property of material entities?  Is there a guilty electron perhaps?

I can answer that simply as I and others have answered it countless times already. Can you not see though that repeatedly asking the same thing just tells us that you don't know (or won't accept) the answer? That's not for one moment the same thing as demonstrating that something is "impossible" as you assert. I might not have the first clue about how gravity works, but that gives me no basis at all to argue that apples fall off trees because invisible pixies pull them off. And that essentially is the structure of your "argument" for "souls".

[Nearly Sane]

So I will ask again:
How can a deterministically controlled emergent property of material entities can be accused of being mistaken?

The accusation refers to a personal entity which must have the ability to be not mistaken in order to be the subject of the accusation.

You are making a category error here. We commonly talk as if some form of responsibility exists, just like we talk as if touch exists (you know the example that has been brought up many times in here that you assiduously ignore, why is that?). But touch doesn't exist logically and neither does free will, and as ever you have not even attempted a logically coherent definition of that.  why is that?


And even if we ignore the problems that have been pointed out, your question will simply be answered because this is what I have to do. You on the other seemed programmed to ignore logic. You are faulty. Your logic circuits are damaged. This is why you cannot answer logically.

[wigginhall]

Put a slice of lemon peel under an electron microscope.  It won't be made of yellow electrons.

A nice reply.  AB will ignore it however, as he has to maintain the pretense that electrons and other particles whistle around on their own, and don't form larger units.   He has to defend against the idea of emergence, even though it is present in nature everywhere.   

[Alan Burns]

A nice reply.  AB will ignore it however, as he has to maintain the pretense that electrons and other particles whistle around on their own, and don't form larger units.   He has to defend against the idea of emergence, even though it is present in nature everywhere.

But if the emergence is generated entirely from brain cells which are under the deterministic control of physical chains of cause and effect, I cannot have any personal control over this because it is the forces of nature which are in control.  So I ask once more:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

[wigginhall]

But if the emergence is generated entirely from brain cells which are under the deterministic control of physical chains of cause and effect, I cannot have any personal control over this because it is the forces of nature which are in control.  So I ask once more:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

So why aren't the electrons in a lemon yellow?

[Alan Burns]

You on the other seemed programmed to ignore logic. You are faulty. Your logic circuits are damaged. This is why you cannot answer logically.

Does this mean that everyone who believes in souls and God must have faulty logic circuits

[Nearly Sane]

But if the emergence is generated entirely from brain cells which are under the deterministic control of physical chains of cause and effect, I cannot have any personal control over this because it is the forces of nature which are in control.  So I ask once more:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

Because as already covered you are making a category error on the use of language. A logical position is not disproved by the common use of language;  this has been pointed out multiple times about the concept of touch but you just ignore it.

The fact that you can't believe something doesn't make it any free (concept you have been unable to explain logically coherently)  choice. Indeed you are contradicting yourself again since you have stated you have no choice but to believe.

[Alan Burns]

So why aren't the electrons in a lemon yellow?

Totally irrelevant to the question:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

[Nearly Sane]

Does this mean that everyone who believes in souls and God must have faulty logic circuits???

Didn 't say that so why misrepresent and quote mine a post? Especially using something that to anything that would pass the Turing test would see as a joke.


Any chance that you could actually answer the post?

[Nearly Sane]

Totally irrelevant to the question:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

That's a hypocritical position to take, Alan. You continually ignore questions. Is it, to paraphrase Neil Innes, good to be a hypocrite?

[wigginhall]

Totally irrelevant to the question:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

Well, the question as to why lemons are yellow if their constituent parts are not, is rather similar to the question of how we end up with the notion of persons, although we are made up of atoms.   However, I accept that you are unwilling to follow this, as no doubt it might lead you to rather unwelcome territory. 

[Alan Burns]

Well, the question as to why lemons are yellow if their constituent parts are not, is rather similar to the question of how we end up with the notion of persons, although we are made up of atoms.   However, I accept that you are unwilling to follow this, as no doubt it might lead you to rather unwelcome territory.

You continue to presume that I have personal control over myself by using words such as "unwilling".  If I have no freedom to choose my own paths of thought and actions, how can I possibly be accused of being unwilling to do something?

[Nearly Sane]

You continue to presume that I have personal control over myself by using words such as "unwilling".  If I have no freedom to choose my own paths of thought and actions, how can I possibly be accused of being unwilling to do something?

Because as has been covered many times now, you are making a category error based on different used is language. How often has the whole question of touch been brought up but you continually ignore it?

[Maeght]

You continue to presume that I have personal control over myself by using words such as "unwilling".  If I have no freedom to choose my own paths of thought and actions, how can I possibly be accused of being unwilling to do something?

Because you demonstrate an unwillingness. It is a description of your behaviour.  It doesn't imply freedom to choose.