Karma

[Nearly Sane]

NS


I really have a problem controlling my responses to posts on this forum . Especially to this one.

Have a nice cup of lapsang souchong, a digestive biscuit and a quick wank, and then see if you are better placed to reply.

[Alan Burns]

but you cited your arguments, which were based on logical fallacies, as evidence earlier on. Do you now accept that they are not evidence and ate logically fallacious?

Many things are possible, you need to make a case stronger than that, as since bluehillside has covered, something being possible is no more valuable than a guess

I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth.  You can label them as logical fallacies, but I stand by them as indicators to the truth.  They are certainly not guesses.

[Sebastian Toe]

  I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.

Are you open to the possibility that there are no such things as souls?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth.

How can fallacious arguments be indicators to the truth?

You can label them as logical fallacies…

It’s not a matter of “labelling" them as logical fallacies – they are logical fallacies.

…but I stand by them as indicators to the truth.

Why, as they are manifestly and demonstrably wrong arguments?

They are certainly not guesses.

Do you have any arguments that are not logically wrong to distinguish your assertions from guesses?

[Nearly Sane]

I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth.  You can label them as logical fallacies, but I stand by them as indicators to the truth.  They are certainly not guesses.

what is an 'indicator to truth' and why would it be anything related to truth if they are based on logicalky fallacious arguments. BTW do you now accept that they are not evidence?

And I know that you don't think they are guesses but the question is why anyone else should think it is anything better than a guess, and simply using logical fallacies does nothing for your case.

[Gordon]

I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth.  You can label them as logical fallacies, but I stand by them as indicators to the truth.  They are certainly not guesses.

All they 'indicate' are a succession of logical fallacies: in other words, your 'arguments' are without merit.

[Alan Burns]

Just are just hung up on physical/non-physical whereas I was making the point that your problem is essentially a conceptual one. A choice is made for a reason and is therefore an outcome of that preceding reason; part of cause an effect.  Just claiming that the chooser is immaterial does not buy you free will in the most fundamental sense. If a choice is made for a reason then it is not free of that reason.  If a choice is not made for any reason, then it is random.

All I am saying is that the reason behind a free will choice is not restricted to the end results of physical chains of cause and effect which began with the big bang.  The will derived from the human soul frees us from the shackles of deterministic events.  Humans are not just driven by animal instincts or learnt experience - we are free to do things because we want to do them.

[Nearly Sane]

All I am saying is that the reason behind a free will choice is not restricted to the end results of physical chains of cause and effect which began with the big bang.  The will derived from the human soul frees us from the shackles of deterministic events.  Humans are not just driven by animal instincts or learnt experience - we are free to do things because we want to do them.

But why would we want to do things if there is no cause of wanting?

[torridon]

...  Humans are not just driven by animal instincts or learnt experience - we are free to do things because we want to do them.

and that is my point - there is a want and a because involved - this shows that there is a reason; 'wants' do not appear out of nowhere - wants emerge through the chain of cause and effect.  Why did I want a hamburger - because I was hungry.

[Jack Knave]

There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).

But the data at best is correlative not causal, and the problem with you lot is that you are taking that leap of faith for no other reason than your confirmation bias; a preordained conclusion.

[Jack Knave]

#635
Sorry about that ...

Sriram's point was this: If robots were able to discuss who their creator was, then if they used similar arguments that are usually applied against the idea of a designer for life, they could never conclude the truth, namely that they were created by human beings.

If humans, or any other biological organism, ceased to exist how would they have the language and concepts to even discuss where they came from? It would all be by faith.

[Jack Knave]

Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, does it?

That's the kind of phrase the theists use to get out of difficult corners - well done!!!

[torridon]

But the data at best is correlative not causal, and the problem with you lot is that you are taking that leap of faith for no other reason than your confirmation bias; a preordained conclusion.

No idea where you get that from. None of us here are working in the field as far as I know, we merely report on where the science is headed, and this is what scientists do, they follow the evidence. We all know correlation is not causation but a correlation suggests a way forward; neural correlates could be all a massive coincidence of course, but scientists don't believe in coincidences - experience shows that apparent coincidences usually indicate a possible underlying causal mechanism to be investigated.

[Jack Knave]

Which bit was unfounded? Brains have been dissected. They really are giant networks of brain cells. Given that, and the observation that consciousness is real (although it's nature is disputed), how can it have done anything other than emerge from the structure and dynamics of the brain?

Correlation is not necessarily causation....

[Jack Knave]

I don't know where you get 'unfounded' etc from.  We are simply following the evidence, and even before we had neuroscience we had plenty of indicators from the medical profession that the brain is the organ of thought and conscious experience. Were you under the impression that anaesthetists were practising some sort of voodoo all this time ?

We are now trying to fill in the detail is all.

What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.

[Sebastian Toe]

That's the kind of phrase the theists use to get out of difficult corners - well done!!!

Thank you, it's called playing them at their own game.   

[Sebastian Toe]

What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.

Do you have one?
Just to make sense of what you are saying.

[torridon]

What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.

Do anaesthetists refuse to put patients to sleep because they don't have a full definition of consciousness ? We may not know all the detail but we know enough to be getting on with the job of investigating it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

But the data at best is correlative not causal, and the problem with you lot is that you are taking that leap of faith for no other reason than your confirmation bias; a preordained conclusion.

Leaving aside who “you lot” might be, you’re off here on two counts.

The first is Hume’s problem of causality, which he put as follows:

“We then call the one object, cause; the other, effect. We suppose that there is some connexion between them; some power in the one, by which it infallibly produces the other, and operates with the greatest certainty and strongest necessity.”

It’s a problem no-one since has resolved – if a cricket ball hits a greenhouse and a window breaks, there’s still no way to eliminate the possibility at least that something else caused it to break.

Second, there is no “leap of faith” here at all. Yes, the data is correlative and how close it is to reasonably being thought to be casual is moot. Fortunately though it’s not an issue we need to consider as the only claim made so far is that emergence provides a cogent working hypothesis, and not that it’s a rounded theory.

It’s also incidentally the only hypothesis in town with a coherent rationale to support it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.

Absent a “clear definition” of gravity, should we assume that you’re floating around in front of your keyboard?

If there is a definitional problem here, then it’s yours. Consciousness happens in nature, so the assumption is that it plays by the rules of nature. You don’t like this, presumably because you think there’s something special about it that puts it outside those rules. Isn’t it for you then to tell us how you define it such that this exceptionalism becomes reasonable?

[wigginhall]

To say that neuroscience research is based on a leap of faith is absurd.   There is also the issue of pathology - if someone thinks that dementia, for example, is not connected with brain pathology, they should contact their local hospital fast and correct them.

[ekim]

ekim,

But it’s not “the “ path at all. Absent a method of any kind to distinguish the truth value of any such claim from that of any other, the “anecdotal and experiential” will produce as many outcomes as there people to have them.
 
Which if fine in some ways for subjective truths personal to the people who have them, but provides nothing whatever of value for establishing “true for you too” truths.

The 'path' or method tends to revolve around a variety of meditation techniques and  for the individual, some may achieve results in the sense of an inner experience e.g. peace, bliss, joy, love, etc.  As it is a personal inner experience it is often preceded by the words such as 'indescribable','absolutely', 'stunning', 'overwhelming' and the language used to convey a sense of that experience to others is one of mythos using analogy, metaphor, simile etc.  I think you are right in that there is no way of validating such an experience as 'true for you too'.  Even if two people had identical inner experiences, I doubt whether they would have the language or conceptual models capable of confirming this.  This is probably why some 'mystics' who imply that they have had such a first experience remain silent about describing words such as Heaven, God, Tao.  It is often those with just second hand information that rabbit on about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

The 'path' or method tends to revolve around a variety of meditation techniques and  for the individual, some may achieve results in the sense of an inner experience e.g. peace, bliss, joy, love, etc.  As it is a personal inner experience it is often preceded by the words such as 'indescribable','absolutely', 'stunning', 'overwhelming' and the language used to convey a sense of that experience to others is one of mythos using analogy, metaphor, simile etc.  I think you are right in that there is no way of validating such an experience as 'true for you too'.  Even if two people had identical inner experiences, I doubt whether they would have the language or conceptual models capable of confirming this.  This is probably why some 'mystics' who imply that they have had such a first experience remain silent about describing words such as Heaven, God, Tao.  It is often those with just second hand information that rabbit on about it.

Quite – and the problem comes not only when they overreach into “true for you too” territory for the experience but also when they attempt to attribute a divine cause for their experiences (“God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, whoever) which also a "true for you too" claim – “my god must be your god too” etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ekim,

Quite – and the problem comes not only when they overreach into “true for you too” territory for the experience but also when they attempt to attribute a divine cause for their experiences (“God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, whoever) which also a "true for you too" claim – “my god must be your god too” etc.

Either naturalism is true for everyone or it isn't. You seem to be special pleading that theistic ''true for you'' is somehow bad but naturalistic ''true for you'' isn't.

The case for monotheism is put by Aquinus. God has an actual state and everything else has a derived one. How do you justify that there could be more than one of what he describes (gods as you call them) and how two things could both be omnipotent?

[Alan Burns]

How can fallacious arguments be indicators to the truth?

I do not accept that they are fallacious arguments. 

I have presented these arguments at several conferences and meetings, in addition to publishing them as a major article in Mensa magazine (from which I had a large number of replies in subsequent editions) and at no time did I get accused of fallacy.   It is only on this forum where the accusation of fallacy has been made.