The Illusion of Self

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Opinion is not necessarily wrong is it.

No - that's why I was careful to say that guesses are more likely to be wrong than to be right. However unlikely, guesses can also sometimes be right though as a matter of dumb luck - just as a stuck clock is right twice a day.

It is merely your opinion that he is but in your case opinion seems to be right...in short, that it is opinion does not seem to give you warrant that he is wrong.

Flat wrong. It's demonstrably the case that guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than to be right - that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Is scepticism a declaration of wrongness and not merely suspicion of it? I don't know.

Translation needed.

Seems to be a bit of word piracy.....

What does?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But God's love is much, much more than an opinion.  It is a life changing experience.

Lots of opinions that are wrong have also been life-changing if people held them strongly enough.

That still leaves you with just an opinion though.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to find it very easy to dismiss the works of one of the greatest literary scholars of the 20th century.  Do you seriously think that Lewis did not realise what a non sequitur is?
(And I assume you will be labelling this as the fallacy of arguing from authority)

Had a quick listen to the C S Lewis essay - found four mistakes in just the first few minutes (not least that it's one long argumentum ad consequentiam) so gave it up.

Bit disappointing really - I'd hoped for more.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have suspended judgment:

Then you are still on the fence.

[Shaker]

I get ''a quick listen'' of Lewis just like I understand ''a swift read'' of him......It's called evasion! Done it myself.

No, as I know to my own cost it's called "having vastly better things to do with one's time than endure a succession of woeful pseudo-arguments."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Then you are still on the fence.

Ooh, a negative proof fallacy - we haven't had one of those for a bit.

I can think of no good reason to think that was a divine Jesus, but I have to allow for the possibility at least that it happened just as I must allow for the possibility of anything else. That's not sitting on the fence - it's just the only possible response to an unfalsifiable conjecture; any unfalsifiable conjecture.

[Shaker]

Vlad,

Ooh, a negative proof fallacy - we haven't had one of those for a bit.

No, there was one yesterday!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

I get ''a quick listen'' of Lewis just like I understand ''a swift read'' of him......It's called evasion! Done it myself.

Mistakes are mistakes are mistakes, regardless of whether you happen to spot them in the first three minutes of something.

[Gordon]

Then you are still on the fence.

Not really: I think it highly unlikely there is anything to 'Christ' based on the arguments I've heard from Christians and the provenance issues surrounding the stories: my position on that is unlikely to change for as long as the same tired old fallacies are repeatedly used by Christians.

However, that there is always a risk of unknown unknowns prevents me from absolutely excluding the 'divine' - but for as long as the same fallacious arguments continue there are no current reasons why I should take 'Christ' as being a serious proposition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

No, there was one yesterday!

Was there? Must have missed that one. Good to see Vlad keeping the logical error count as high as ever though - not sure I'd know how to respond if ever he attempted a logically coherent argument! 

[Alan Burns]

there are no good reasons to think there is anything meaningful to evade.

This may be your opinion, but if there was nothing meaningful to evade, how have we managed to generate thousands of posts on the subject?

[Shaker]

Not really: I think it highly unlikely there is anything to 'Christ' based on the arguments I've heard from Christians and the provenance issues surrounding the stories: my position on that is unlikely to change for as long as the same tired old fallacies are repeatedly used by Christians.

However, that there is always a risk of unknown unknowns prevents me from absolutely excluding the 'divine' - but for as long as the same fallacious arguments continue there are no current reasons why I should take 'Christ' as being a serious proposition.

In a nutshell ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This may be your opinion, but there was nothing meaningful to evade, how have we managed to generate thousands of posts on the subject?

What wouldn't there be?

There are thousands of posts about leprechauns too, so...

...oh hang on though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ooh, a negative proof fallacy - we haven't had one of those for a bit.

I can think of no good reason to think that was a divine Jesus, but I have to allow for the possibility at least that it happened just as I must allow for the possibility of anything else. That's not sitting on the fence - it's just the only possible response to an unfalsifiable conjecture; any unfalsifiable conjecture.

I don't think you understand ''being on the fence'' which is a state of having suspended judgment.

Do you think being ''on the fence'' undermines one's manhood or ego or the patina of perfection one is trying to cultivate?


Lewis's point is that being on the fence is all a rabbit can achieve but the question of Jesus is something that can be answered existentially. Science in which unfalsifiability has meaning
is not interested in existential questions.

[Gordon]

This may be your opinion, but there was nothing meaningful to evade, how have we managed to generate thousands of posts on the subject?

That would be people, Alan: most here are interested in a variety of issues, albeit religion is the main event. I think you are conflating 'meaningful' in relation to the veracity (or otherwise) of certain claims with the inclination of people to talk about things that interest them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Mistakes are mistakes are mistakes, regardless of whether you happen to spot them in the first three minutes of something.

......and what were they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are thousands of posts about leprechauns too, so...

What a fine legacy you've left us Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be people, Alan: most here are interested in a variety of issues, albeit religion is the main event. I think you are conflating 'meaningful' in relation to the veracity (or otherwise) of certain claims with the inclination of people to talk about things that interest them.

Have you then suspended judgment on Christ or not?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#181

Trouble is, “all this” is just another restatement of your failure to understand the phenomenon, and yes – the hypothesis is that life can emerge from non-life because that’s what all the evidence and reasoning suggests.

This time, I'll repost ekim's questions in full from the Karma thread:

#546

I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before.  What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?

#562

Yes, that part I think I understand.  If a rock is reduced to sand and left in the sea it doesn't attempt to reassemble itself, but if a living sponge is put through a blender and left in the sea it will reform itself.  My question was 'What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?'

#581

Thanks for the information.
This seems to imply consciousness or awareness.  In order to pay attention to a neighbour the component must be aware of the neighbour's presence, surely?  Similarly pattern recognition and feedback.  A grain of sand doesn't have awareness and so the same kind of mass movement doesn't take place.  All that Johnson seems to be doing is suggesting a kind of control loop which is used in business but without any plan. There does seem to be a motive though ... adapting to the environment.  So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?

Perhaps this is a reason why the question proved difficult. From #181 on this thread:

Life itself could be described as the point at which non-adaptive systems become adaptive for example as layer of complexity builds upon layer of complexity.

but on #604 on the Karma thread

Snowflakes are non-adaptive emergent systems because they stay snowflakes

I think the inconsistency is clear...

[Gordon]

Have you then suspended judgment on Christ or not?

I already said that I had: as things stand I don't think 'Christ' is a remotely serious proposition, and that will remain my position for as long as the current range of fallacious arguments persist.

However, I'm open to any brand new arguments that aren't just re-packagings of the old fallacious ones.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think you understand ''being on the fence'' which is a state of having suspended judgment.

Better than you do it seems. It just means that there's no basis on which to say a defintiive "no" to an unfalsifiable conjecture. Simple enough really I'd have thought.

Do you think being ''on the fence'' undermines one's manhood or ego or the patina of perfection one is trying to cultivate?

Well that's bizarre, even for you.

Lewis's point is that being on the fence is all a rabbit can achieve but the question of Jesus is something that can be answered existentially. Science in which unfalsifiability has meaning
is not interested in existential questions.

How would you propose to answer a factual question about whether or not Jesus was divine "existentially" exactly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

I think the inconsistency is clear...

Than you think wrongly: some emergent systems adapt (cities, people, some software), other do not (snowflakes, snooker balls etc). It's simple enough, at least conceptually.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

......and what were they?

A straw man, a false dichotomy and an argumentum ad consequentiam came in quick order in the first few minutes.

[SusanDoris]

#293

A post with several complicated quotes from others, resulting in what appears to be an attempt at a  small lecture rather than a contribution to a discussion.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

SOTS,

Than you think wrongly: some emergent systems adapt (cities, people, some software), other do not (snowflakes, snooker balls etc). It's simple enough, at least conceptually.

You're doing the same thing as on the Karma thread in response to ekim's questions...

If what you said here on the Karma thread

Snowflakes are non-adaptive emergent systems because they stay snowflakes

is true, then there is no way for a non-adaptive emergent system to become an adaptive emergent system. Therefore, what you say here

Life itself could be described as the point at which non-adaptive systems become adaptive for example as layer of complexity builds upon layer of complexity.

cannot be true.

Perhaps SusanDoris (#298) can help, or do you too want to ignore the problem?