Advice to icontinent fallacy accusers

[ProfessorDavey]

You have obviously completely failed to understand what Haldane ... were saying.

Haldane, 90 years ago said:

'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'

Do you agree with him that the brain isn't composed of atoms? And if so what is it composed of.

[SusanDoris]

Incidentally, I've corrected the typo in the thread title for this post, because it pisses me off every time I come here. Could the admin possibly alter it in the opening post, so that it appears correctly in the board index?

On almost every other occasion I would certainly agree with you, as I have to listen to every line. However, in this particular case, it is quite amusing to hear Synthetic Dave pronounce it as originally typed!

[SusanDoris]

Prof D - Very interesting posts.

[wigginhall]

For everyday perception of the world around us, maybe, but it doesn't apply to more arcane stuff like advanced science or philosophy.

I must admit I'm lost now about what you are saying.   Are you saying that cognitive tasks such as playing chess, building flying buttresses, or designing frocks, don't directly aid survival, and so cannot be accounted for by evolution?   Does this mean that they are supernaturally aided?

And are you saying that you support Lewis's milk jug argument?

[ProfessorDavey]

I must admit I'm lost now about what you are saying.   Are you saying that cognitive tasks such as playing chess, building flying buttresses, or designing frocks, don't directly aid survival, and so cannot be accounted for by evolution?   Does this mean that they are supernaturally aided?

I think you need to consider what it is that is key to evolutionary advantage as humans.

Is it that we are immensely strong - nope, we'd not come close to competing with a grisly bear

Is it that we are hugely fast - nope a cheetah is going to win on that one.

Nope our key evolutionary advantage as a species is our intelligence and our ability to solve complex problems creatively to aid survival. And to do that we need abstract creative thought, we need inquiry and innovation to problem solve. And secondly we do this as social animal - so we need all the complex societal and cultural elements that cement society and allow us to pass on knowledge (which isn't the kind of innate behaviour) so we creativity, language etc help support long term survival.

[SteveH]

But it's quite possible that a false belief could aid our survival - some evolutionary scientists, including Dickie Dawkins I think, argue that religious belief offers evolutionary advantages, but all religious beliefs can't be true, because they contradict each other.

[SteveH]

Haldane, 90 years ago said:

'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'

Do you agree with him that the brain isn't composed of atoms? And if so what is it composed of.

Of course the brain is composed of atoms, and Haldane thought so too. The point he was making was that if strict naturalism is true, and our consciousness is only the result of physical changes in our brains, we have no reason to suppose that the reasoning that led us to that conclusion is valid, and thus no reason for supposing our brains to be made of atoms.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it's quite possible that a false belief could aid our survival - some evolutionary scientists, including Dickie Dawkins I think, argue that religious belief offers evolutionary advantages, but all religious beliefs can't be true, because they contradict each other.

Of course it could - religion being a good example. I can see how a belief in a religion might help cement cultural and societal links and norms which could convey evolutionary advantage. And you are of course correct that all religions cannot be correct (in an objectively true manner) although they could all be false.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course the brain is composed of atoms, and Haldane thought so too. The point he was making was that if strict naturalism is true, and our consciousness is only the result of physical changes in our brains, we have no reason to suppose that the reasoning that led us to that conclusion is valid, and thus no reason for supposing our brains to be made of atoms.

Muddled thinking - we might reason (correctly) that our brains are made of atoms, we might (falsely) reason that our brains are made of atom-free space gunk. It isn't the reasoning that is instrumental in concluding that our brains are made of atoms - it is the objective evidence.

Our brains are made of atoms and what was perceive and define as conscious thoughts are manifestations of complex electro-chemical interactions in our neural networks and that is the case regardless of whether our reasoning leads to that conclusion or not.

[wigginhall]

I think you need to consider what it is that is key to evolutionary advantage as humans.

Is it that we are immensely strong - nope, we'd not come close to competing with a grisly bear

Is it that we are hugely fast - nope a cheetah is going to win on that one.

Nope our key evolutionary advantage as a species is our intelligence and our ability to solve complex problems creatively to aid survival. And to do that we need abstract creative thought, we need inquiry and innovation to problem solve. And secondly we do this as social animal - so we need all the complex societal and cultural elements that cement society and allow us to pass on knowledge (which isn't the kind of innate behaviour) so we creativity, language etc help support long term survival.

Yes, I wasn't doubting that.  I am curious as to what SteveH is saying about evolution, or for that matter, Lewis's milk jug. 

[wigginhall]

Of course the brain is composed of atoms, and Haldane thought so too. The point he was making was that if strict naturalism is true, and our consciousness is only the result of physical changes in our brains, we have no reason to suppose that the reasoning that led us to that conclusion is valid, and thus no reason for supposing our brains to be made of atoms.

I don't get that.   Why should we not suppose our reasoning is valid?   Because it is constructed in the brain?   But reasoning has its own system of laws and symbols.   It sounds like another fallacy of composition - atoms don't think, therefore how can the brain?  As I said before, atoms aren't green, so how come grass is?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#43

Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.

And this is why certain things you've posted look like anti-intellectualism and, yes, an inferiority complex. The terms you mentioned in #38 mean something. They refer to specific things. They're not just scenery or pleasant but useless verbiage - they serve a purpose in identifying particular things. Whether it's medicine or meteorology or engineering or carpentry or baking or whatever, particular disciplines have their own nomenclature to refer to relevant things within it. Do you accuse those of 'polysyllabic nerdery' as well?

The people in those professions tend to use the terms correctly.

SteveH said this in his #42 (emphasis mine)

You can show why the argument is fallacious without doing so. Read C.S.Lewis's popular works to see how it's done. You don't catch him writing "Circular argument", "Appeal to consequences", etc. all the time, but he nails the fallacy effectively in his own words.

In other words, show your working. So in my opinion, it’s not SteveH being anti-intellectualism, more asking for that intellectuallism to be demonstrated by showing from first principles what any alleged error is.

The problem with bandying around terms that it allows the person doing it to
1. Not have to back up their own position
2. Dismiss opposing arguments without reasoning
But then, perhaps that’s the intention? An illustration appears on this very thread, bluehillside’s #61 to Vlad

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.

Because it's not there. "Must" would be an argument from necessity; rather all the NPF claims is an "is" - as in, "you can't falsify my orbiting teapot conjecture, therefore my conjecture is true".

But then goes on to say

Incidentally, if you seriously think you don't use the NPF what point do you think you are making when you post comments like, "But you can't disprove it either"?

So despite it being obviously clear that Vlad is not using the NPF, bluehillside still wants to accuse him of it via some back door. It’s a convenient way to dismiss what Vlad has said, whilst never having to back up the basis for his own reasoning.

[floo]

#43
The people in those professions tend to use the terms correctly.

SteveH said this in his #42 (emphasis mine)In other words, show your working. So in my opinion, it’s not SteveH being anti-intellectualism, more asking for that intellectuallism to be demonstrated by showing from first principles what any alleged error is.

The problem with bandying around terms that it allows the person doing it to
1. Not have to back up their own position
2. Dismiss opposing arguments without reasoning
But then, perhaps that’s the intention? An illustration appears on this very thread, bluehillside’s #61 to Vlad
But then goes on to saySo despite it being obviously clear that Vlad is not using the NPF, bluehillside still wants to accuse him of it via some back door. It’s a convenient way to dismiss what Vlad has said, whilst never having to back up the basis for his own reasoning.

And when have you actually backed up the basis for your own reasoning with something substantial?

[Enki]

Re. your last question - by C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane, for another: JBSH famously said "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

I first met this quote when reading C.S.Lewis's 'Miracles' as an argument to be used against the idea of naturalism.

My thoughts then, as now, are as follows:

1) We have a great deal of scientific evidence that the brain is composed of atoms. Hence, probabilistically this seems to be true, unless, of course, evidence to the contrary can be established.

2) There is a great deal of evidence that mental processes are the result of electrical activity associated with the brain. Hence, probabilistically this seems to be true, unless, of course, evidence to the contrary is forthcoming.

3) If I am to question whether any belief is true or not, all I have at my disposal are the contents and processes of my brain combined with the information gathering from my senses. As regards the problem set by Haldane here, my brain takes into account points one and two.   

4) So Why then, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, should I not think that it is perfectly valid to reason that my brain is composed of atoms?

[SusanDoris]

And when have you actually backed up the basis for your own reasoning with something substantial?

/well said Floo!



 enki #113Very interesting.

[wigginhall]

Good post, enki.  I think Haldane and others are hitting up against something real - the so-called hard problem of consciousness.  This could be crudely paraphrased as the problem of a physical organ (the brain), producing abstract thought, feelings of subjectivity, and in fact, experience itself.

The short answer to that is that we don't know how the connection between physical and mental works, but the longer answer is that neuroscience is busy looking for solutions.   The so-called 'mysterians' argue that we will never understand the connection between the physical events and the mental events  in the brain, but that seems pessimistic. 

However, Haldane and others seem to be saying that because there are physical events going on in the brain, which are linked somehow with the mental events, therefore the mental events come under suspicion.   I must have a bit of my brain missing here, as I can't see the argument here. 

Of course, strong evidence that there is a link is provided by damage to the brain, whether via disease or injury, when thinking, memory, emotions, and so on, can be impaired.   I knew someone who couldn't remember who she was, but after medical treatment, recovered.   Probably a mini-stroke.

Damn and blast, this is a repetition of stuff on the other thread.  Ah well.

[SusanDoris]

Damn and blast, this is a repetition of stuff on the other thread.  Ah well.

Well,I am enjoying reading your posts on both threads!

[wigginhall]

Well,I am enjoying reading your posts on both threads!

Cheers.  I wish someone would tell me why these people such as Haldane argue that because thinking has a neural basis, therefore it cannot be trusted.   Does this mean that vision is also suspicious, because visual inputs are processed in the brain?  I don't think anybody says that the senses and thinking are 100% reliable, but so what?

[Dicky Underpants]

Lewis' arguments are for the playground. This is the actual wording of his trilemma point which is so laughably lacking in robustness to be almost sad:

'A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God'

To start with the basic premise can only be justified if it can be verified beyond doubt that the gospels are a completely accurate representation of what Jesus actually said - and there is no evidence to support this at all. So you don't even get off the starting blocks.

Prof

In fact there is nowhere in the gospels that he is even recorded as having said it - I think he is recorded as affirming that he was the Son of the Blessed once. Even in John's Gospel, which is the prime source for quotes about Christ's divinity, his statements are always allusive rather than direct affirmations, and even there he is quoted as saying "My Father is greater than I". His favourite moniker about himself seems to have been "The Son of Man" - and as Geza Vermes says, there are quite likely two ways of interpreting that.

But as you say, all this pales into insignificance against the obvious fact that we can't be sure that the gospels are a totally accurate account of what Jesus actually said - especially since they contradict each other on important points. I sometimes wonder whether Lewis actually sat down and read the gospels with attention at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Cheers.  I wish someone would tell me why these people such as Haldane argue that because thinking has a neural basis, therefore it cannot be trusted.   Does this mean that vision is also suspicious, because visual inputs are processed in the brain?  I don't think anybody says that the senses and thinking are 100% reliable, but so what?

I think the issue is that, as humans, we perceive thoughts, perceptions and emotions as so critical to 'who we are' that we struggle with the concept of them being in fact merely how we perceive electrochemical reactions - massively complex networks of electro-chemical reactions admittedly, but electrochemical reactions nonetheless.

But that really is an issue of perspective and I suspect those that struggle with this concept also struggle with the notion that each of us, when considered on a cosmic scale is infinitely small and un-important in the great scheme of things and therefore likely to want to cling to the notion of a god 'who cares about us personally'.

But to my mind that is missing the point - that ours emotions, whether love, hate or joy are driven by electrochemistry doesn't diminish their importance to us as individual humans. And because our higher level consciousness (which is, in reality, the complexity of our electrochemical network) is critical to our evolutionary success as a species it makes absolute sense that the manifestations of the complexity of that network (thoughts, emotions etc) are perceived as being so important to us.

[wigginhall]

Cheers, Prof. Davey.  That does make sense.   I suppose it  seems humiliating to think that my most noble thoughts and feelings are underpinned by neural activity, or if you like, are neural activity.   Whereas the idea that I am made in God's image is quite flattering really!   I just find the arguments about atoms in the brain hollowing out reason, baffling really.  My legs are made of atoms, but it doesn't stop dancing being enjoyable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

er.. "true enough"? No it's true whether or not we exist in some cosmic game .. because it is true in the game we have constructed.,. outside of that it is gibberish.

You're saying the same thing as me. It's true enough within the constraint of whatever reality we can construct - but which tells you nothing about realities that may lie outside of that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

What a load of pseudo-intellectual, terminally confused bollocks.

Which part didn't you understand?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

This is obviously not the case; maths is absolutely true beyond a peradventure, because it is deductive, not inductive. However, I disagree with Udayana that maths is merely a game we have constructed: numbers are abstract, but they can refer to objects: apples, bicycles, etc. If I take two apples and add two more, I will always get four. It is inconceivable that any society has developed a number-system in which 2+2=5 (whatever symbols they use to represent "2" and "5"). Maths can be used to solve complex real-world problems, and to make predictions such as the date of the next total eclipse visible in the UK, so it can't be purely a human game.

Nope. On what basis would you argue that anything is "absolutely true"? How would you eliminate the possibility at least of an unknown unknown that falsified any such truth?

However unlikely you may think it to be that we're just characters in a giant SIMS type game programmed to think that 2+2=4, improbable and impossible are not the same thing.

And that's the problem when you want to play on the turf of absolutes.   

Shorthand version: absolutes are only possible with omniscience. Are you claiming that we're omniscient? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof

In fact there is nowhere in the gospels that he is even recorded as having said it - I think he is recorded as affirming that he was the Son of the Blessed once. Even in John's Gospel, which is the prime source for quotes about Christ's divinity, his statements are always allusive rather than direct affirmations, and even there he is quoted as saying "My Father is greater than I". His favourite moniker about himself seems to have been "The Son of Man" - and as Geza Vermes says, there are quite likely two ways of interpreting that.

But as you say, all this pales into insignificance against the obvious fact that we can't be sure that the gospels are a totally accurate account of what Jesus actually said - especially since they contradict each other on important points. I sometimes wonder whether Lewis actually sat down and read the gospels with attention at all.

Which rather emphasises my point that 'mistaken/misunderstood/misrepresented' needs (at the very least) to be added to mad, bad or god in Lewis non-sense trilemma.

For Lewis to fail to provide that as another option suggest that Lewis is really stupid as it is so obvious, overtly dishonest or so blinkered that he cannot see beyond his prejudice that what is written in the bible must be true.

I don't believe the first (he wasn't dumb) and I'll be charitable and go for the last option, although I suspect the middle option is it forces the reader to make a judgement about Jesus, rather than about those who ultimately wrote stuff about Jesus decades later.