Karma

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not accept that they are fallacious arguments.

That’s not your choice to make. If they follow the structure of logical fallacies – and they do – then they’re logical fallacies.

I have presented these arguments at several conferences and meetings, in addition to writing 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.

Then either you presented different arguments, or your audience didn’t understand the nature of logical fallacy (or perhaps were too polite to tell you where you’d gone wrong).

[Nearly Sane]

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.

So an argument by 'sort of' authority, and an ad populum rather than dealing with the real issues with your arguments. Fallacy bingo has rarely been so easy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Either naturalism is true for everyone or it isn't.

It is. If anyone jumps out of a window they’ll hit the deck shortly afterwards regardless of their opinions on the matter.

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

Nope – see above. If you think I’m special pleading, try the experiment.

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)…

It’s Aquinas, and I don’t need to justify it – he was just making an assertion.

… and how two things could both be omnipotent.

How could one thing be omnipotent?

[Udayana]

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.
...

Naturalism is true for everyone involved, theism isn't. This is because "naturalism" is about things defined in a way that allows us to talk about and agree with each other about their characteristics, and are able to check them. These things and characteristics can be considered to be "objective".

Theism is about things we can't agree on. We usually can't even agree whether we are talking about the same things or not - this is because our only experience of them is personal, so very difficult to share, let alone identify and discuss what lies behind them. Even if we agree some conclusions, we have no means of checking them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Naturalism is true for everyone involved, theism isn't. This is because "naturalism" is about things defined in a way that allows us to talk about and agree with each other about their characteristics, and are able to check them. These things and characteristics can be considered to be "objective".

Theism is about things we can't agree on. We usually can't even agree whether we are talking about the same things or not - this is because our only experience of them is personal, so very difficult to share, let alone identify and discuss what lies behind them. Even if we agree some conclusions, we have no means of checking them.

The naturalism you are talking about is methodological naturalism. The naturalism I am referring to is philosophical naturalism. Only that type of naturalism can be a counterpart and counterpoint of theism.
You can be a methodological materialist and a theist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

It is. If anyone jumps out of a window they’ll hit the deck shortly afterwards regardless of their opinions on the matter.

Nope – see above. If you think I’m special pleading, try the experiment.

It’s Aquinas, and I don’t need to justify it – he was just making an assertion.

How could one thing be omnipotent?

Everything has derived power therefore is not all powerful. But where is that power derived from. The obvious answer is something which has actual power from which the power everything else has is derived.

[Udayana]

The naturalism you are talking about is methodological naturalism. The naturalism I am referring to is philosophical naturalism. Only that type of naturalism can be a counterpart and counterpoint of theism.
You can be a methodological materialist and a theist.

I agree you can be both, methodological materialist and a theist, but you can't expect everyone to agree with your  theistic understanding or even know if they really do agree or not. "Philosophical naturalists" are up the same tree imo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

The naturalism you are talking about is methodological naturalism. The naturalism I am referring to is philosophical naturalism.

No it isn’t, and you’ve been found out about re-defining terms just to suit your argument many times now. It’s actual meaning – that the natural is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable – is widely held to be true. Your personal version – that the natural is necessarily all there is – is so far as I can tell used by no-one, so it’s just one of your countless straw men arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Everything has derived power therefore is not all powerful. But where is that power derived from.

Which way will you go here I wonder – argument from personal incredulity, or god of the gaps? 

The obvious answer is something which has actual power from which the power everything else has is derived.

And god of the gaps it is then. Having done your special pleading for “God”, why not just do the same for, say, the Big Bang?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It’s Aquinas, and I don’t need to justify it – he was just making an assertion.

He was making an argument from far more logic than the one you are committed to..............What's logical about ''we don't know but we know it isn't God'' which is a contradiction in terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Which way will you go here I wonder – argument from personal incredulity, or god of the gaps? 
 
And god of the gaps it is then. Having done your special pleading for “God”, why not just do the same for, say, the Big Bang?

Because the big bang is past. Aquinas is talking about what sustains the universe not what starts it. His argument works just as well with a universe that is infinite.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

No it isn’t, and you’ve been found out about re-defining terms just to suit your argument many times now. It’s actual meaning – that the natural is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable – is widely held to be true. Your personal version – that the natural is necessarily all there is – is so far as I can tell used by no-one, so it’s just one of your countless straw men arguments.

No Hillside I frequently refer to encyclopedic definition. You don't.
Readers are invited here and now to look up the definitions of emergence and philosophical naturalism and see that your use diverges from convention.

You frequently insult the intelligence of your readers by your playfully flagrant linguistic confusion....and the numpties frequently drink it in.

[Walter]

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

your advice was very soothing, however I have no idea what 'lapsang souchong' is . thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
And god of the gaps it is then. Having done your special pleading for “God”, why not just do the same for, say, the Big Bang?

If one isn't allowed an actual power from which all other powers are derived power then I'm afraid you are proposing that everything has derived power. That is the equivalent of saying everything is contingent and that isn't logical.

The problem for the big bang is that it itself represents change...from nothing into something and is thus itself a good candidate for something with derived power.

[Nearly Sane]

If one isn't allowed an actual power from which all other powers are derived power then I'm afraid you are proposing that everything has derived power. That is the equivalent of saying everything is contingent and that isn't logical.

The problem for the big bang is that it itself represents change...from nothing into something and is thus itself a good candidate for something with derived power.

false dichotomy, and switching the burden of proof, on the basis of a stawman.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

false dichotomy, and switching the burden of proof, on the basis of a stawman.

Explain each accusation.

[wigginhall]

If you are talking about derived power, that presupposes that it is derived from something else, presumably, a power which is not derived.   However, you can't just launch into such a framework, without introducing it, and explaining it.    Thus, Aquinas argues that intellectual power in humans is derived from God's intellect or mind. 

So the notion of derived power already contains the idea of primary power.    Isn't this assuming the conclusion that one wants?

Same with the idea of contingency; of course, this is part of an ancient argument for God, that all things are contingent, and there must be something non-contingent.   But hang on,  this is another circular argument.   Contingency is defined as depending on something else.   Smell a rat?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you are talking about derived power, that presupposes that it is derived from something else, presumably, a power which is not derived.   However, you can't just launch into such a framework, without introducing it, and explaining it.    Thus, Aquinas argues that intellectual power in humans is derived from God's intellect or mind. 

So the notion of derived power already contains the idea of primary power.    Isn't this assuming the conclusion that one wants?

Same with the idea of contingency; of course, this is part of an ancient argument for God, that all things are contingent, and there must be something non-contingent.   But hang on,  this is another circular argument.   Contingency is defined as depending on something else.   Smell a rat?

But if we start with ourselves we are contingent in all respects are we not? and those respects are contingent in all respects. The moment you wish to do away with that contingency you introduce the necessary.
But again all things cannot be contingent since that makes the word contingency void and I imagine everything in that case is therefore necessary.....and yet what we observe is contingency.

Bringing up the ancient nature of this is a red herring and non sequitur.

I bring up derived power therefore because that is how we find ourselves. If it is not derived then we are not derived from anything nor sustained by anything and are a primary power. Do you really want to claim that for the sake of an accusation that I am loading things against your argument?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ

Cheers mate, I never could get my head around this cosmological argument thingy ( actually when ever it was mentioned on here I kind of glazed over, I preferred the old Fine tuning argument ) but I found Prof Feser's lecture very interesting, I also like the way the man came across, his K.I.S.S attitude was very refreshing.

Gonnagle.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#811

Spoof,

No it isn’t, and you’ve been found out about re-defining terms just to suit your argument many times now. It’s actual meaning – that the natural is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable – is widely held to be true. Your personal version – that the natural is necessarily all there is – is so far as I can tell used by no-one, so it’s just one of your countless straw men arguments.

No Hillside I frequently refer to encyclopedic definition. You don't.
Readers are invited here and now to look up the definitions of emergence and philosophical naturalism and see that your use diverges from convention.

I took up Emergence-The musical's challenge regarding the definition of philosophical naturalism. From Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

No Hillside I frequently refer to encyclopedic definition. You don't.

Really. Let's see shall we?

Readers are invited here and now to look up the definitions of emergence and philosophical naturalism and see that your use diverges from convention.

No need - here they are (all from Wiki):

Naturalism: "Naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm."

Note there the, "without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth". What you actually mean when you abuse this term I think is physicalism, a different matter and one that no-one I know of subscribes to.

Emergence: "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.

Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things."

Note here the, "such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit" and the "the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry".

Scientism: "Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."

Note here the, “the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning” and the “a matter of putting too high a value on natural science” – it’s not "only worldview" or "only value", so it's not the absolutist position you think it to be.

You frequently insult the intelligence of your readers by your playfully flagrant linguistic confusion....and the numpties frequently drink it in.

Er no - see above. Your problem here isn't just that you get these things wrong, but rather that you keep getting them wrong no matter how many times you're corrected. My sense is that you're so heavily invested in one argument - "how can philosophical materialism be validated?" or some such - that you find it impossible to grasp that it sits on basic definitional mistakes. Moreover, it's actually worse than that - even if you could find some definitions that support you (and there can be ambiguities in meaning sometimes if you look hard enough) you're addressing your posts to people here (me in particular) who don't hold to those positions in any case.

So when I say things like, “no, what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing” why then do you relentlessly respond with a critique of your private version of materialism I’ve explicitly told you I don’t hold to?

Can you see now why some of us here find you to be so deeply dishonest?
 

[Jack Knave]

For some reason, this post puts me in mind of old creationist arguments that life contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  Clearly the growth of complexity in this cosmos is not a simple straightforward linear curve, there are many variations along that path, for instance we have something complex (termites) building something less complex (termite castles).  So far so good.  But because there are instances of high complexity creating lower order complexity, we cannot from that extrapolate a complete invalidation of the underlying principle that generally and ultimately, higher order complexity derives from lower order complexity.  Termites and termite mounds are but an instance of one variation creating a lower order variation but ultimately both termites and their mounds obey the underlying principle of emergence. 

And to hop on over to Sriram's robot analogy, yes the robots could have been made by a superior biological species, and yes, they wouldn't have known that; and yes the higher order biological species might have been made in turn by a yet higher order of conscious silicon synths that the biologicals were unaware of.  But the take home lesson from this, is that this cannot go on forever, we cannot go on climbing an upwards complexity ladder to explain things that we find hard to understand because as an explanatory strategy it is doomed to fail.  At some point, we just need to look down at where we have come from to understand things.

That's an interesting philosophical musing or perspective.

I did have the thought a few days ago that God could be the product of an emergent process from a base element which would be eternal in nature; and the material world would similarly be from such but a different base element. They then would evolve together each needing the other for this process of emergence to develop in each of each others spheres.

[Jack Knave]

Interesting stuff.  I don't understand why the apparent 'single-mindedness' of mental life is suppose to be such a defeater for neuroscience research.   As you say, it is likely that different currents of data processing have to be coordinated in the brain, in order to avoid a chaotic representation.   We can see this with multi-tasking, and that's ignoring unconscious and preconscious stuff going on.   In fact, in psychotherapy, you get used to seeing individuals as crowds, but that's rather a different angle.  But again, I don't see why this is not amenable to neural processing.

If you have a large multifunctional system and there is no single decision centre, a CEO if you like, then chaos will rein (look at the mess of the EU). That would not be advantageous for survival i.e. for natural selection. Something/someone has to be the final arbiter who says that is what we will do. In a company the CEO is often one of the last people to see all the plans and ideas that the various departments have come up with to facilitate the company's survival and growth. This is similar to our consciousness that gets to ponder on the various choices that are available.

[Jack Knave]

I wonder why you are so defensive of neuroscience. Does it need it? How do you know that it is not imputed claims which go beyond what science is capable of that neuroscience needs defending from?
At the moment the angle you and your ilk seem to have is that neuroscience is there to prove that intelligence or processing capability equals consciousness.

I think neuroscience like multiverse is prone to having it's terms bent on a new atheist agenda although, having said that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, has apparently acknowledged that there just might be some things we will not get.

By all means investigate all avenues but do so in the name of science rather than Dennetian philosophy.

I just wonder whether their ideas are falsifiable. How would they go about testing that their results are not just correlative and not as they claim causative if consciousness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

If you have a large multifunctional system and there is no single decision centre, a CEO if you like, then chaos will rein (look at the mess of the EU). That would not be advantageous for survival i.e. for natural selection. Something/someone has to be the final arbiter who says that is what we will do. In a company the CEO is often one of the last people to see all the plans and ideas that the various departments have come up with to facilitate the company's survival and growth. This is similar to our consciousness that gets to ponder on the various choices that are available.

No. The human body is “a large multifunctional system” but the countless cells within it are entirely oblivious to the existence of almost all the other cells, yet functioning bodies we have nonetheless. The whole point of emergence as a phenomenon is there is no “CEO”, no designer, no top down anything.