Here. A paper by Daniel Bonevac. This is similar to Ross.
The early Church Fathers argued that the only answer is that there is a transcendent causal power making that relation possible. The power cannot be the forms themselves, or the form of the Good, as Plato thought, for our relation to them is precisely the point at issue. Nor can it be generated from finite minds themselves. The best explanation of our relation to the transcendent identifies the transcendent power with God. (17)
a. If realism is true, then, given a content bearer b, among our possibilities are skeptical scenarios for b.
b. Content bearers have specific contents.
c. A content bearer b can have a specific content only by virtue of some fact.
d. If there were a fact by virtue of which b had a specific content, there would be grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios for b.
e. There could be grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios for b only if b’s content is grounded in something transcendent.
f. Something independent of individual, finite minds can ground content only if there is something with causal power, independent of individual finite minds, that makes such grounding possible.
g. Only a transcendent causal power could make possible grounding in something transcendent.
h. Nothing natural is transcendent.
i. Anti-realism grounds content in some feature of a collection of finite minds.
j. A finite collection of finite minds does not suffice to explain the grounding of content.
k. An infinite collection of finite minds does not suffice to explain the grounding of content.
l. The best explanation for the existence of a supernatural, transcendent causal power grounding content in the transcendent includes an infinite mind and, in particular, the existence of God.
m. So, there is a God.
63 comments:
"transcendent"
What transcends what?
Transcends human beings?
Nature.
Transcends nature.
Begging the question.
The argument presented is at best equivocation of what transcends what, for the purpose of begging the question of the transcendent.
Alternatively, the "argument" is just gibberish.
But, just supposing the characterization of gibberish is thought to be untrue, then at a minimum the argument is hopelessly ambiguous in combination with being convoluted.
To make any sense of what is at least superficially gibberish one would have to strictly define what is supposedly transcendent to what, and in what respect or what sense A somehow is said to transcend B.
Then one could go through the argument carefully labeling antecedents, consequents, and their asserted orders of precedence.
Such methodical analysis will most certainly expose the argument as unsound, but as presently worded the argument is hopelessly ambiguous.
c. A content bearer b can have a specific content only by virtue of some fact.
Ontology.
d. If there were a fact by virtue of which b had a specific content, there would be grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios for b.
Epistemology.
Whatever a "content bearer" is supposed to be is ambiguous, but the fact is the ontological state of affairs.
Skepticism is a reflection of ignorance, not knowing, and not accepting as necessarily true some assertion about what the ontological state of affairs actually is, because we have insufficient information, lack knowledge, of the true ontological state of affairs.
"if b’s content is grounded in something transcendent."
Transcendent to what? Human perception? Human understanding?
Physical reality transcends our understanding of it. Extra solar planets existed as they do prior to our discovery of them, and we still only know a meager bit about them.
"h. Nothing natural is transcendent."
Everything natural is transcendent.
The natural state of affairs transcends our capacity to apprehend it.
Well, Victor, that did not take long. And no, I do not go into a new analysis with a 50/50 attitude. It is like on the Atheist Experience when an young earth creationist calls claiming to be able to prove the Earth is 6000 years old, or a flat Earther calls. It isn't an issue of listening with an open mind because they might really have a good point.
They never have a good point. It is always just a re-hash of the same old failed arguments. Always.
It isn't a question of some great intellectual challenge to identify the error. All the atheist does is listen to the argument, pick out the errors, and point them out, done.
It's like talking to a proponent of Aristotelian physics. There is no question of the individual having a good point.
They never have a good point. Such people are always always always deeply mistaken. The only issue is identifying the particular wording of that individual's primary mistakes.
Well, that is not completely the end of it because there are psychological issues. In general people do not accept reason against their prejudices, at least not quickly.
For example, you are a PhD, as are folks like Feser, Plantinga, and Koons.
I can quickly and easily identify the invalid logic and false premises you, Feser, Plantinga, and Koons make. That is not much of an intellectual challenge for me, it is pretty much a quick algorithmic process for me because there just are not that many different arguments for the existence of god on offer, they are all painfully bad, and it is a simple matter to identify the invalid logic and false premises in any re-hash wording that comes along.
I have no control, however, over the psychological factors of intransigence, cognitive breaks, denialism, and most especially the grossly destructive effects upon reason that religious belief inflicts.
This argument you have presented is ambiguous between ontology versus epistemology, and then makes an assertion that is 180 out.
How that is not obvious to an otherwise intelligent person is the mystifying part.
How that is not obvious to an otherwise intelligent person is the mystifying part.
New Atheism still doesn't champion the art of self-reflection, I see. Hard to avoid ironic blunders without it.
But then to do that, you'd have to have intellectual humility, which is another virtue thrown out the window by the Gnus. So instead we keep getting these gems that are indeed insults, but not against the recipient.
Are Gnus otherwise intelligent?
That's called charity.
I've pretty much moved past that. Charity may be a virtue when there are reasons to withhold judgement. But when we see that people can't learn or don't want to learn after being given sufficient information and time what other conclusion can we draw?
"I see"
That's a good thing then.
Since your vision is so keen, perhaps you could point out how the OP is something other than ambiguous gibberish?
What exactly is a "content bearer"? In what sense does a thing "bear content"?
What is a "fact" in the context of a "content bearer"?
Is a fact ontologically the case?
Is skepticism an issue of epistemology?
What "transcends" what in this context, and in what sense is A somehow "transcendent" with respect to B? What are A and B in this "argument"?
If "nothing natural is transcendent" what thing is transcendent? How does this supposedly "transcendent" thing somehow relate to A and B above?
I mean, it is pretty terrific that you can "see". With such keen vision I would imagine answering the above questions to make a sound argument out of the OP will be super easy for you.
StardustyPsyche said:
"What transcends what? ... one would have to strictly define what is supposedly transcendent to what, and in what respect or what sense A somehow is said to transcend B."
See pp. 12-14 of the linked PDF (pp. 225-227 in terms of apparently book pages): "What does 'transcendent' mean? x, is transcendent if and only if x, is ..."
StardustyPsyche said:
"Whatever a 'content bearer' is supposed to be is ambiguous ..."
See p. 8 of the linked PDF (p. 221 of the book): "Let b be anything thought to have content - a word, a phrase, a sentence, a proposition, a thought, a perception, a concept, etc. Call it a content bearer."
StardustyPsyche said:
"it is pretty much a quick algorithmic process for me"
Hmmm. On the face of it, that algorithmic process did not include conducting a search to see whether transcendent and/or content bearer had been defined. But let us just say, for the sake of argument, that any of those definitions were in any way ambiguous (after all, given the very nature of language, some amount of ambiguity - such as via incompleteness - is be expected). Perceived ambiguity offers the opportunity for an attempt at disambiguation. In other words, fallacy fishing in itself is insufficient as analysis - even when fallacy fishing is preliminarily useful to an analysis.
Given the above apparent (if not interest in, then) concern for the definitions of terms, take another look at argument #17 highlighted by Victor. The word fact was not defined in the linked chapter. Is that a problem? If it is a problem, is it an insuperable problem? You have identified fact to be "the ontological state of affairs", and you thereby seem to claim that you can eschew the word fact by substituting the phrase the ontological state of affairs. Even if that substitution could be accomplished successfully in every instance where fact was to be used, that still leaves the possibility that Bonevac uses fact differently. Let us suppose that he uses fact in a more ordinary sense wherein a fact is always about something, for instance a truth about something. Recall that such usage would be in keeping with Mellor's explanation: "Actual states of affairs, corresponding to true statements, I shall call facts."
Does this way of defining fact produce an immediately apparent problem for the argument? Or does this way of using fact clear the way to premise 'e' where transcendent is used? Then again, maybe the fact that grounded is not defined is another matter which concerns you. In that case, the use of grounds in premise 'd' might also be an issue for you. Maybe you find this approach to be excessively tedious; then again, maybe something more interesting is to be found further on in the argument or following from the argument.
StardustyPsyche said:
"to make a sound argument out of the OP"
Some people try to provide the best possible argument for a position which they do not hold as a means of better realizing weaker points in their own opposing view. Sometimes trying to provide the best possible answers to questions you have about a position which you do not hold highlights weaker points for those who hold an opposing view.
"Some people try to provide the best possible argument for a position which they do not hold as a means of better realizing weaker points in their own opposing view"
So this is not a sound argument for god, just an attempt to somehow poke holes in arguments against gods.
Right, this is not a sound argument for god.
Yet:
"m. So, there is a God. "
This unsound argument for god asserts there is a god.
Hence my characterization of the "argument" as gibberish stands.
" a word, a phrase, a sentence, a proposition, a thought, a perception, a concept, etc. Call it a content bearer.""
So words are content bearers?
Do words exist? If so, where? Can you point out into the night sky towards a word? Can you dig a word up out of the ground? Can you hold a word in your hands?
Yet this "thing" you call a word somehow "bears content"? How? In what sense does something that is really not a thing at all, that has no ontologically independent existence, somehow "bear" anything?
Like so many arguments for god this one relies on the fallacy of reification.
What we call a word is a brain process. When we write a word we actually execute a sequence of brain processes that direct motor actions to make symbols on a medium. Those symbols are not words. Those symbols are unintelligible unless one is literate in the language of the writer.
The reader who is literate experiences brain processes that are in some ways similar to the writer. But the reader might experience meanings quite different from those the writer had in mind.
That is an overview of how writing, symbols, and reading work. So where is this "content"? And how is this supposed content somehow "borne" by a "word"?
Well, it gets worse, much much worse. Somehow the fact of verbal and written language communication is going to get twisted around in a blizzard of muddled terms that reify abstractions until the theistic philosopher manages to make another tortured attempt at reasoning his way to a proof of god.
What is the appeal of this sort of thing? The faux sophistication? The delusional notion that there is some sort of logical justification that god has somehow been philosophically been proved?
p217
"Kripke argues, make it impossible to account for a speaker’s content in terms of facts
about that speaker’s past usage, mental history, or even dispositions, since a finite being’s
dispositions are finite. I shall go further: The normative character of content transcends
any naturalistic relation or set of facts. Its infinitary character transcends any relation
to any finite set of finite minds. Content thus requires a non-naturalistic relation to an
infinite set of finite minds or to an infinite mind."
A speaker's content is not "infinitary", obviously. That is just made up nonsense, trying to smuggle in an infinity so that later an infinite being can be asserted.
First Kripke says
"a finite being’s dispositions are finite."
Then, Kripke says the opposite
"content ... Its infinitary character "
Content is the content of words from the finite being. Finite being -> finite words -> finite content. How simple is that?
How is that not immediately obvious?
"What does “transcendent” mean?
x is transcendent if and only if x is
• independent of individual, finite minds,
• temporally and modally stable,
• infinitary,
• normative, and
• objective."
Even on the notion that words somehow bear content the words are a product of a finite number of finite minds and therefore the content borne is finite.
So, no content is infinitary.
Therefore no content is transcendent.
Finite brains bear the content of finite brain processes (linguistic expressions).
There is no call for the transcendent in content bearing linguistic expressions.
Finite in yields finite out. How simple is that?
Are you really fooled by a blizzard of gibberish that tries to smuggle in "infinitary" to describe finite processes?
StardustyPsyche said:
"So this is not a sound argument for god, just an attempt to somehow poke holes in arguments against gods."
Non sequitur.
Regardless, what was put forth was a reason for why you might want to improve upon the argument - such as by making it clearer or by making it more easily understood. Even if you do not (ever) regard the argument as sound, do you understand the argument well enough to make it better even if by your reckoning it remains in some way unsound? Do you understand the interests of the argument proponents well enough to make a better argument for them?
StardustyPsyche said:
"So words are content bearers?
Do words exist? If so, where? Can you point out into the night sky towards a word? Can you dig a word up out of the ground? Can you hold a word in your hands?
Yet this 'thing' you call a word somehow 'bears content'? How? In what sense does something that is really not a thing at all, that has no ontologically independent existence, somehow 'bear' anything?"
Can you substitute a preferred terminology which also indicates that you grasp the intended meaning? Or are you afraid to do so - afraid maybe because you think that undertaking such a task might somehow weaken what force you imagine your responses have?
StardustyPsyche said:
"The delusional notion that there is some sort of logical justification that god has somehow been philosophically been proved?"
If you are not able to make the argument more easily understood, then another approach you can try could start this way: Assume "that god has somehow been philosophically ... proved" by the argument at issue. What has that argument told you about "that god"?
"Can you substitute a preferred terminology which also indicates that you grasp the intended meaning?"
The only "meaning" is to try to smuggle in an infinity that is actually finite, in the middle of an argument for an infinity, in order to try to argue for an infinite god.
"• infinitary,"
That is the word inserted with respect to so-called content bearers.
Irrespective of the vagueness of such supposed content bearers, whatever these supposed content bearers are they are clearly the result of a finite number of finite beings performing a finite number of processes on a finite set of content.
Human linguistic expressions are finite.
Not "infinitary".
Therefore, not "transcendent by the author's own definition on p225
p227
"? One simple way to put the argument is that there is no good naturalistic
explanation for our ability to refer to things in the world and mean things by what we
think and say. Any account of semantic capacities must at some point resort to magic.13
And the best explanation we have for that magic involves God."
Right, this is an argument from magic.
Somehow the mechanistic process of sensory perception and associative brain processes is beyond the comprehension of theistic philosophers so they say it requires magic, and that magic is god.
I think my case has been proven.
Oh, bmiller, by all means, please do show how the argument actually makes sense.
Have you read the link provided in the OP?
Read the definition of "transcendent"?
Can you explain why our linguistic expressions must entail infinities?
Can you tell me how there "are" an infinity of numbers?
BTW, I am not the one to introduce the word "magic". I quoted from page 227. That is the word chosen by the author.
The author says the argument is that at some point semantic capacities must resort to magic.
The author says the argument is that god explains this magic.
Victor is the one who linked this author, not me.
But, this is coming largely from Plantinga, and as I show in the previous OP about the EAAN, Plantinga is an irrational crackpot. He is a stupid person with a large vocabulary. There are such people. They learn a lot of words but their brains jump around from subject to subject in myriad disjointed misfires. That is Alvin Plantinga.
p220
"Putnam’s goal is in any case larger. He wants to show that we are not brains in vats.
Putnam claims that if “we are really the brains in a vat, then what we now mean by ‘we are
brains in a vat’ is that we are brains in a vat in the image or something of that kind (if we
mean anything at all)” (15).
But part of the hypothesis that we are brains in a vat is that we aren’t brains in a vat
in the image (i.e., what we are “hallucinating” isn’t that we are brains in a vat). So,
if we are brains in a vat, then the sentence “We are brains in a vat” says something
false (if it says anything). In short, if we are brains in a vat, then “We are brains in a
vat” is false. So it is (necessarily) false (15).
So, for crackpot Plantinga "brain in a vat" must always mean "fully bodied person thinking he is a brain in a vat".
But, the question is "if we are really the brains in a vat".
If I really am a brain in a vat then I am a brain in a vat thinking I am a fully bodied person thinking I am a brain in a vat.
Plantinga is so stupid he gets himself all confused about the very scenario he proposed, all in the space of just a couple paragraphs. Plantinga is a crackpot. He can't even keep his references straight for a few sentences.
This is very, very simple.
If I am a brain in the head of a human body I can think about being a brain in the head of a human body.
If I am a brain in a vat I can think about being a brain in a vat.
Done. What is supposed to be the problem?
But, no, apparently not done:
"In short, if we are brains in a vat, then “We are brains in a
vat” is false."
Huh?
If in point of actual ontologically true fact we are brains in a vat then the statement "we are brains in a vat" is false.
Only a profoundly stupid person would claim that.
Stardusty,
Children are taught the definition of the word "infinity" and can grasp the concept. It's an indispensable concept in math and science not to mention philosophy in general. A quick google and you can find it is taught to kids 1-4 here.Infinity.
We get it. If you cannot, then you should be asking yourself what you are missing, not why the rest of us understand something you don't.
StardustyPsyche originally appears to have objected to (sort of, or in a manner of speaking - it was actually not even as substantial as a complaint) the employed definition of content bearer on the basis of there being some unspecified alleged problem associated with the location of words ("Do words exist? If so, where? Can you point out into the night sky towards a word? Can you dig a word up out of the ground?") as well as on the basis of some unidentified alleged problem with the fact that words are intangible ("Can you hold a word in your hands?"). StardustyPsyche then objected to the use of the word bearer saying, "In what sense does something [i.e., a word] that is really not a thing at all [apparently inasmuch as it is intangible] ... somehow 'bear' anything?"
Of course, even if Bonevac is using bearer somewhat figuratively, the phrase content bearer is clearly being used as a way to gather together under one identifier "anything thought to have content - a word, a phrase, a sentence, a proposition, a thought, a perception, a concept, etc." If the StardustyPsyche complaint about the choice of bearer had any actual validity, then the notion of content would still stand although subsequent reference would be in terms of "a word, a phrase, a sentence, a proposition, a thought, a perception, a concept, etc." rather than the more brief content bearer. In the alternative, some word other that bearer could possibly have been suggested - an alternative word which would avoid the figurative nature which apparently irks StardustyPsyche.
That is why StardustyPsyche was then asked to "substitute a preferred terminology which also indicates that you grasp the intended meaning?" Rather than suggest a preferred terminology, StardustyPsyche instead responded, "The only 'meaning' is to try to smuggle in an infinity that is actually finite, in the middle of an argument for an infinity, in order to try to argue for an infinite god."
However, what StardustyPsyche did not do is indicate in which premise the attempted smuggling is alleged to have occurred. That is what StardustyPsyche is now requested to do.
bmiller,
I long suspected you get your information from children's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpJSkLsuLP0
"The biggest number in mathematics is known as infinity"
How absurd. Time for you to grow up, bmiller. Such childish ideas are clogging your thoughts and blocking you from adult understandings.
Michael,
"the employed definition of content bearer"
Yes, philosophically, the notion that a word somehow "bears content" is highly dubious, but, conversations tend to get very diffuse if one dwells on every problem at once.
"Do words exist?"
Right, the existence of words is likewise highly dubious, but, moving on...
"The only 'meaning' is to try to smuggle in an infinity that is actually finite, in the middle of an argument for an infinity, in order to try to argue for an infinite god.""
Right, that is the meaning of the argument as a whole.
Yes, there are multiple problems with terminology and concepts throughout the argument, but I am not all that interested in trying to patch up all the ill conceived notions of these sorts of pretzel logic word twister arguments for god.
The core error of the argument is an attempt to smuggle in an infinity to describe that which is finite. Once the infinity is smuggled in then that false infinity is leveraged to argue for a further infinity to explain the smuggled in infinity, that further infinity is then called god.
These are all common linguistic tricks of theistic philosophers.
"However, what StardustyPsyche did not do is indicate in which premise the attempted smuggling is alleged to have occurred"
Yes I did, I guess you missed it.
August 11, 2023 12:27 PM
August 11, 2023 5:51 PM
" e. There could be grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios for b only if b’s content is grounded in something transcendent. "
So, to have grounds to discount skepticism on some particular point we supposedly need an infinity, since buried in the definition of transcendent is an infinity.
By that "logic" the only way we could have grounds to be convinced of anything is if we employ an infinity. Nonsense. We are finite beings that can have grounds to be convinced of proposition's based on finite evidence.
The "argument" is junk at its core so I don't have much interest in trying to patch up all the surrounding misconceptions employed in it.
Stardusty,
So did you never understand the concept of infinity even in elementary school on? Or did your cult demand you forget it?
bmiller,
You really don't get this, do you?
Infinity is not a number at all, much less the biggest number.
Telling children that infinity is the biggest number is a miseducation of children. I suppose it is done in the name of introducing a subject but it leads to lasting misunderstandings, which is apparently the case for you.
Stardusty,
You loudly denied that numbers don't exist. Since numbers don't exist and infinity means unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity it follows that infinity must not exist either (quantity being total amount or number). Now you are claiming that some video is making mistaken claims about something you told us doesn't exist. As confused as all that is, it misses the point I'm truly interested in.
Did you always misunderstand the concept of infinity or did your cult convince you of your current concept?
StardustyPsyche said:
"'However, what StardustyPsyche did not do is indicate in which premise the attempted smuggling is alleged to have occurred'
Yes I did, I guess you missed it.
August 11, 2023 12:27 PM
August 11, 2023 5:51 PM"
I still do not see reference to a premise of the argument in either of those postings. But that does not now matter, because there is such a reference in the latest posting.
StardustyPsyche said:
"' e. There could be grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios for b only if b’s content is grounded in something transcendent. '"
Yet, StardustyPsyche still has not justified the accusation of smuggling.
StardustyPsyche said:
"So, to have grounds to discount skepticism on some particular point we supposedly need an infinity, since buried in the definition of transcendent is an infinity."
Is that supposed to justify the smuggling accusation? Alternatively, is "buried in" essentially equivalent to "smuggling", or is "buried in" supposed to be less harsh than "smuggling"? Maybe it is supposed to be more harsh.
Regardless, what is the supposed problem with the alleged burying? It is quite common for a premise to employ a term without defining that term within that premise. With regards to the argument at issue, this very manner of using a term while not defining that term within that premise is not a problem inasmuch as the meaning of that term is explained elsewhere within the same article. Of course, you could insert whatever additional premise(s) you think necessary to uncover that which is "buried", to bring it into the light of the argument. Then again, maybe you would prefer to justify or retract the smuggling accusation.
StardustyPsyche said:
"the only way we could have grounds to be convinced of anything is if we employ an infinity. Nonsense. We are finite beings that can have grounds to be convinced of proposition's based on finite evidence."
Convinced?!?!?! If the goal of the article was to convince or to put forth a way to convince, then I reckon it was far more failure than success. If one ever seeks to convince, then rhetorical flair is typically more the concern than is the (technical) quality of the argument being put forth (if the rhetoric even bothers with argument or more than the mere appearance of having provided an argument or a hint that there could be a good argument).
A possibly interesting tangential issue: The linked article includes some discussion about Platonism. Some mathematicians are what can be called Platonists with regards to numbers. Can such a Platonist also be a materialist? What reasons would someone have for being a Platonist with regards to numbers?
Convinced?!?!?!
grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios
Call it what you want, I don't really care, the inclusion of an infinity is nonsense.
The argument is junk.
Stardusty,
How can a finite mind such as your's understand infinity?
StardustyPsyche said:
"I don't really care"
There you go again with the not-caring. Now, that might just be the way you express exasperation. Then again, given that this is not the first time you have resorted to professing not-caring, this not-caring might follow from an inability (or possibly an unwillingness) to have a sense of others, or this not-caring might be an aspect of a sort of philosophical paranoia evidenced by a consistent avoidance of adopting a for-the-sake-of-argument perspective along with an apparent lack of interest in imagining how or why others might hold or proffer positions other than your own. Alternatively, this all might just indicate some degree of philosophical laziness, because philosophical charity often does require substantial effort. One problem with this extensive not-caring is that it provides no means by which to know whether or to what extent others might in some way agree with you; of course, that not-caring also prevents you from grasping why and to what extent others disagree with you. But, then, not-caring is self-justifying and self-protective, isn't it?
Writers need editors. Well, writers need good editors - editors who can both challenge arguments (when the writing is intended as philosophical) and who can indicate passages which need to be made more clear or more consistent or what have you. To this end, good editors need to be able to pose insightful questions, and they can do this even if they are not actually in agreement with the writer's position and even if they are not especially interested in the topic about which the author wants to write. By approaching a piece of writing as an imagined editor, engagement might be more fruitful and might lead to more interesting discussion. However, that would most often require being rid of the not-caring.
I don't care what you call it.
The word choice is not very important.
Introducing an infinity to that which is finite is nonsense.
That is why the argument is junk.
But Stardusty. Your mind is finite. How can you be discussing something infinite?
"grounds for discounting skeptical scenarios" is just a long winded way of saying "convinced".
You can call it persuaded, taking the stance of, concluded of...or whatever you want, I don't care about your exact choice of words.
I don't care if you call it smuggled in, buried, hidden, tucked away, embedded in lower layers or how you characterize it. An infinity is placed within a layered argument in a list of words that are applicable to a definition.
That infinity is applied to what is actually finite, making the argument junk.
I don't care about the exact words used to characterize how one discounts skepticism or how one goes about embedding a falsehood in underlying layers of the argument.
That which we call garbage, by any other name, would smell as bad.
But would it smell infinitely bad or just finitely bad? And how could you with a finite mind know what infinite even means?
Hal,
"Thoughts are not representations."
I am thinking of a rock I see right now.
How is that thought not a representation of the rock?
Are you suggesting that a representation must resemble the thing being represented? I know a little bit about encoding schemes. The resultant codes, if examined by a human reader, bear no apparent association with the thing the codes are said to represent.
Yet, if I run those seemingly randomized codes through a deterministic deconvolution algorithm that which was previously encoded is faithfully reconstructed.
Therefore, those seemingly randomized codes did in fact represent the thing encoded.
"Nor are beliefs mental states."
What do you mean by "state". A static arrangement of material? If so, I submit that you would be limiting the notion of a "state", if that is the case of what you are asserting.
Are you familiar with dynamic RAM? Internally it is continuously changing, yet it seem to the user to be in a static state. That is because internally the changing conditions stay within ranges and are continually refreshed to remain within a particular range, thus dynamically maintaining a seemingly static state.
I have beliefs, persistent beliefs. Beliefs that in some cases have persisted for decades, yet you claim that my beliefs are neither brains states, nor representational.
I believe you are gravely mistaken :-)
"Following rules is a form of behavior. It is not some internal mental process."
New Rule:
To be successful I must think of the numbers 1, 2, 3 in succession 3 times.
(thoughtful pause)
I have an announcement to make, I have indeed been successful!!!
So, Hal, all I did to follow that rule was engage in an internal mental process.
You might wish to reconsider your above assertions, Hal, they do not hold up to analysis and counterexample.
Stardusty,
Can think of what would happen if you kept counting 1, 2, 3, 4 etc forever? Wouldn't you be counting toward infinity? But infinity is not finite. How can a finite mind like your's have a mental representation of something infinite? You would have snuck in a infinity in something finite.
Can think of what would happen if you kept counting 1, 2, 3, 4 etc forever?
Yes.
Wouldn't you be counting toward infinity?
No.
If I count up and if I never die I will never count up to infinity.
All real counting is counting up to a finite number, therefore there is no sneaking in of an infinity into my claims about real counting.
"How do I know that you are following that rule?"
You don't, but that is your tough luck.
"Simply claiming you did it in your head is not enough."
It's enough for me to follow the rule, if you do not believe I followed the rule why should I care?
"After all the math teacher in my example would not accept a student claiming"
Tough luck for the teacher and the student then.
I know I followed a rule purely by an internal mental process so I know you are wrong.
You can prove to yourself that you are wrong by following your own rule with your own mental process.
OP
" j. A finite collection of finite minds does not suffice to explain the grounding of content. "
Human content is finite, so finite minds are sufficient to ground finite content.
Victor, how many words have you uttered in your life?
How many words have you thought of in your life?
Are those finite numbers?
How many human beings have ever lived?
Is that a finite number?
Is a finite number times a finite number equal to another finite number?
There is no call for an infinity to ground content because content is finite, being the product of a finite number of finite beings acting finitely.
All real counting is counting up to a finite number, therefore there is no sneaking in of an infinity into my claims about real counting.
You just wrote you could think of what would happen if you counted forever. That is how most people come up with the concept of infinity, right? But as you point out, you could never really do that during your lifetime. Yet you still seem to have the concept of the infinite in that brain you keep saying is finite. Otherwise why argue about who is giving the proper definition of infinite.
Somedays you claim infinity cannot exist and other days you claim to have the correct definition of infinity. Stability over time is another way to ensure our knowledge is grounded per the OP.
"You just wrote you could think of what would happen if you counted forever. That is how most people come up with the concept of infinity, right?"
If so then most people are wrong.
"Stability over time is another way to ensure our knowledge is grounded per the OP."
Knowledge is not necessarily stable over time. Knowledge can change over time.
The OP stabilizes nothing because the argument is nonsense.
If so then most people are wrong.
So if you could count forever never reaching the end, that is not infinity? Then what do you think that word means? You've been using it.
Knowledge is not necessarily stable over time. Knowledge can change over time.
So facts change over time? Hitler was not the leader of Nazi Germany because today is Friday?
"It would be tough luck for the student. Without demonstrating that he actually understands the rules for division and multiplication he would flunk the course."
I know you are wrong and I am not taking a course from you so my knowledge that you are wrong is sufficient for me.
"Simply thinking or believing that you know those rules is not an adequate criteria for determining that you actually do."
It is adequate for me to determine what I actually do, which is adequate for me to determine that you are wrong.
"So if you could count forever never reaching the end, that is not infinity?"
Correct.
If you count up, say one number per second.
Also, you never die, and counting is all you do.
Without end.
You will never count up to infinity.
"So facts change over time?"
You are confusing ontology with epistemology.
Stardusty,
You keep saying this or that explanation of the concept of infinity is wrong but you never tell us what you think the concept is. So you must have some concept that you don't want to share. But how is that possible since you have a finite mind? If a mind is merely matter in motion everything, including its' knowledge, is finite and nothing finite can transcend (to rise above or go beyond the limits of)itself to be aware of something it is not.
You are confusing ontology with epistemology.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm trying to find out how you define things. It appears that you think knowledge has nothing to do with facts. My definition is that one has knowledge when what one thinks to be the case is actually the case. It seems the OP is using my definition since it is referring to facts. Is that why you are confused about what the OP is arguing?
OP,
" l. The best explanation for the existence of a supernatural, transcendent causal power grounding content in the transcendent includes an infinite mind and, in particular, the existence of God. "
There was never a call for the existence of a supernatural, transcendent causal power to ground content in the first place.
Human beings are finite beings.
Human being each hold and express finite content.
The number of human beings that have ever lived is finite.
Finite times Finite times Finite equals Finite.
There is no call for an infinity to ground content.
Victor, do you have any kind of mature, rational, sound argument for the existence of god?
It seems not.
Every argument you present fails immediately.
And no, I do not come at the process of evaluating such arguments from a 50/50 standpoint.
When someone says they have an argument for a 6000 year old universe, or that biological evolution didn't happen, or geocentrism, or flat earth, or that picture of Ross Perot shaking hands with a space alien depicts a real space alien, or Jewish space lasers, or the moon landing was faked, or god exists...no, I do not approach such assertions with the thought the individual is thinking clearly, should be intellectually respected, and may have some really good points that call for explanation, no, I do not take that approach.
All arguments for god, on offer, fail immediately.
There are no sound arguments for god, on offer, none whatsoever.
It takes me some time between about 10 seconds and 30 minutes to identify the location of the defect(s) in any particular argument for the existence of god.
Many such arguments are presented in a straight forward way so identifying the errors is simple and fast for me.
Other arguments employ a great deal of rhetorical puffery, with layers of definitions and tedious layered references employed for the apparent purpose of obfuscating the defects. Those sorts of arguments require a bit more reading and digging to get through all the verbal camouflage, but finding the defects is inevitable.
The puzzling part is not finding the errors, that is easy.
But why do any PhDs genuinely fail to realize these errors on their own?
That is the challenging bit, accounting for why folks like you, Victor, educated philosophers, don't understand these glaringly obvious defects on your own.
Finite times Finite times Finite equals Finite.
Yet you keep complaining that only you understand what infinite means while everyone else is wrong. How can your finite mind understand what infinite means?
Hal,
"Unfortunately, you seem to be more interested in hurling insults"
You are wrong. I have demonstrated that conclusively. Saying you are wrong is not an insult when you are in fact wrong.
Making rules and following rules can be a purely internal mental activity, which you deny.
That is one of the things you are wrong about.
I proved to myself that you are wrong by making a rule and following it purely as an internal thought process.
I gave you the tools to prove to yourself that you are wrong by you doing the same sort of thing for yourself.
You should be thanking me for educating you as to a mistake you made instead of getting all butt hurt about it.
Hal,
" I happen to be an atheist but I don't think theists are unreasonable or idiots for believing in God."
In general, as a whole, theists are not typically idiots or unreasonable people.
The human brain is highly segmented and diverse. I have never engaged with a Christian that displayed a capacity to be consistently rational on the subject of Christianity.
Christianity is intrinsically a highly self-contradictory set of doctrines.
All arguments for the existence of god, on offer, suffer one or more fatal defect(s).
Deism, by contrast, is not necessarily incoherent (as Christianity is). Deism just puts the god label on a few ultimate unknowns.
Hal,
"I do find it interesting that your dualistic conception of the mind mirrors that of many theists."
I never expressed any assertion of dualism. You are making that up out of whole cloth.
"The only difference being that you consider it to be the brain that interacts with a body"
That isn't dualism, that is materialism. Also, the brain is part of the human organism like the heart, the liver, etc.
Saying the brain interacts with the body is like saying the eye interacts with the body or the kidney interacts with the body. The brain, the eye, and the kidney are all parts of the whole human organism.
How you get some sort of "dualism" out of that is a mystery to me.
"It's too bad that you can't see that this conception actually supports the deductive argument that you claim to be fallacious."
More vague and groundless assertions made up out of whole cloth.
"So long."
Learn how to think your assertions though more clearly before you express them and you will be less likely to end up feeling all butt hurt when somebody calls you on your mistakes.
Victor,
As I was saying August 18, 2023 11:47 AM
finite in, finite out.
The content of human expression is finite, because human beings are finite beings and we express a finite number of concepts so our utterances have finite content.
Since the content of human utterances is finite there is no call for an infinite being to account for finite content.
The content of human expression is finite, because human beings are finite beings and we express a finite number of concepts so our utterances have finite content.
Except that you keep telling us all what infinity means. Are you infinite?
I happen to be an atheist but I don't think theists are unreasonable or idiots for believing in God.
I've been reading New Atheist gibberish for so long it actually startled me for an atheist to not only speak of a theist without including an insult, but to also correctly capitalize God. Thank you for being a positive counterpoint to the usual childish offerings we get.
Kevin,
"I've been reading New Atheist gibberish for so long"
Interesting, would you be able to offer a sound argument for the existence of god, by any chance?
Every argument for the existence of god I have yet read turns out to be unsound. Do you know of one that is, in fact, a sound argument?
I know of no argument for the existence of god, as god is not an entity I'm aware of or believe in.
Hal recently focused upon the premise "c. A content bearer b can have a specific content only by virtue of some fact." Two terms in that premise seem particularly worthy of semantic consideration certainly inasmuch as neither of these terms are directly explicated; the two terms are specific and fact.
As was noted previously with reference to Mellor, one possible understanding of fact is that a fact is an actual states of affairs corresponding to a true statement. The term true statement can be understood as truth restricted to expression in some language. When such a statement refers to something, it is a necessary characteristic of that truth that whatever is referenced is what can be called a determinate matter, state, condition, or context – which is to say that what is being referenced is described as being set or settled or definite such that determinateness is to be recognized as a characteristic necessary for truth. Determinateness gives at least some sense to the term specific used in the premise; however, the more important aspect concerning this way of understanding fact is that since truths are expressions (with truths as statements being expressions in some language) and since expressions are produced only by minds, then all facts are products of minds: No minds; no truths. No minds; no facts. To put it another way: By this way of understanding fact (as well as truth), minds are necessary for facts (and truths).
When it comes to the issue of facts about things that actually exist but which are not currently (or ever) known to exist, there is the question about whether there are facts about those unknown things. What can be stated about something not known to exist? Well, it can be said of anything which exists - even if it is not known to exist - that any existing thing has properties or characteristics which distinguish or apply to that thing. The statement that a thing which exists has properties or characteristics would seem to be a statement about a determinate condition regardless of whether the thing is known to exist or not; hence, that statement made by some mind would seem to be a truth. Furthermore, that statement would seem to be a fact about any and every actual state of affairs - indeed, that stated fact might effectively be a necessary truth. However, by the understanding of fact currently under consideration, it would only be a necessary truth so long as there is a mind to produce the statement. Regardless, the fact that a thing which exists but which is not known to exist has properties or characteristics is generally - rather than specifically - the case. Accordingly, it is possible that facts which are generally the case - or which are necessarily true - are not the sorts of facts at issue in the argument. After all, the type of content bearer at issue is the sort which is susceptible to skeptical scenarios (as per premise a), and a necessary truth is a statement which is not susceptible to skeptical scenarios other than possibly the sort of global skepticism which Bonevac notes that "Wittgenstein and Sellars ... [regard as] unintelligible."
Of course, if there were any minds which knew (and in some way expressed) all facts (including all possibilities), then there would be no metaphysical basis for global skepticism - whether or not that sort of skepticism is unintelligible. Such omniscience would also provide the specificity set forth in the argument.
The foregoing considerations are based upon understanding facts as tied to statements such that facts and truths depend on and are the products of minds. Can the scenario be reconfigured so as to remove dependence on minds?
To be continued ...
Continuing ...
If the Mellor understanding of fact is re-stated such that a fact is an actual states of affairs corresponding to a truth where truth is something which resides in a sort of Platonic realm, then there ostensibly are truths which do not depend on minds. However, this re-statement makes the term fact rather redundant inasmuch as what is being claimed is that each actual state of affairs corresponds to a truth. The mind-independence of truths is maintained by this re-statement, but the need for a sort of Platonic realm would appear to entail a metaphysics of non-naturalism which precludes strict materialism. Can the scenario be reconfigured so as to remove dependence on a sort of Platonic realm?
If actual states of affairs are independent of minds, facts, and truths, then there are no facts and there are no truths about anything if there are no minds. Even given minds, there would be no facts and no truths about anything not known to exist (other than those generalized, non-specific facts and truths such as properties or characteristics abstracted from things known to exist).
While the omniscience possibility dispenses with a metaphysical basis for skepticism whereas the Platonic and materialist positions do not, there still remain many issues beyond that of the access necessary to produce facts and truths about states of affairs - assuming speaking in terms of states of affairs is even a particularly good way of restricting speech or even seeking information of what God would be.
Michael,
"one possible understanding of fact is that a fact is an actual states of affairs corresponding to a true statement."
One is free to make up whatever definitions one wishes, but I don't find that definition useful.
A fact can be defined simply as an actual state of affairs. Minds are irrelevant to facts, unless the fact is specifically about a thought process.
Facts, per se, do not call for a god.
Facts are a subject of ontology.
Knowledge of facts is a subject of epistemology.
StardustyPsyche said:
"One is free to make up whatever definitions one wishes, but I don't find that definition useful.
A fact can be defined simply as an actual state of affairs. Minds are irrelevant to facts, unless the fact is specifically about a thought process."
If each fact is by definition an actual state of affairs, then each actual state of affairs is a fact. If fact is only - is necessarily - understood as an actual state of affairs, then there is no fact about any state of affairs. Given fact defined as and identified with an actual state of affairs, then the following can be added to the previous posting in order to cover the notion that fact and an actual state of affairs are identical:
If actual states of affairs are facts and are independent of minds and truths, then not only are there are no truths about anything if there are no minds, but there are also no facts about actual states of affairs whether there are minds or not. Even given minds, there would be no truths about anything not known to exist (other than those generalized, non-specific truths such as properties or characteristics abstracted from things known to exist).
Fortunately some of that is helping to reduce the typical knee-jerk mocking of religion practised by all too many atheists.
So long as there are people who believe in their own Immaculate Perception, there will be New Atheists. But I appreciate any effort to dispel their nonsense.
Kevin,
"their own Immaculate Perception, there will be New Atheists."
Strawman. I have never encountered any such person. You are making that up out of whole cloth.
Some positions are so blatantly unsound that when one reads the position expressed there is no reasonable question that perhaps the proponent has a good argument.
Some assertions have already been shown to be nonsense, exposed as nonsense again and again and again.
The problem is not in recognizing such assertions as nonsense, rather, that those who stubbornly continue to argue for such nonsense somehow get all miffed when they are not treated as equal partners in rational debate.
It seems to possibly be some sort of psychological defense mechanism for the contender of nonsense to then reply "you just think you are so perfect".
Nope, that is just your personal excuse to cling to obvious nonsense. If you don't like hearing that, then stop clinging to obvious nonsense, and stop casting aspersions on those who point out how obviously unsound every argument for the existence of god on offer is.
I mean, sure, you can argue that the Earth actually is stationary, and that god is performing an ongoing miracle in rotating the entire universe around us. That can violate known laws of physics, but that's ok, because god can violate physics because he created physics. And if that all seems like a lot of work for god all the time, moving this whole universe around at supra light speed, oh, silly new atheist, you are so dumb, god has infinite powers so this ongoing miracle is like picking up a feather for him, dontchyaknow?
And yes, I cannot prove that assertion is wrong. And if you tried hard enough, you could even put together an argument that asserts the necessity of a stationary Earth, and all you would have to do is make it seem logically valid on its face by using technical terms in the argument. But then, somebody is going to come along and find that within your definitions of your technical terms you make unsound assertions, so actually, your argument is unsound.
Well, guess what? I already knew that was going to happen. Because the stationary Earth model is nonsense. Every argument that claims to show the necessity of a stationary Earth always contains some unsound aspect, all of them, every such argument anybody has in print that is generally circulated, they are all unsound.
So, given all that, do I approach the next supposed argument for the necessity of a stationary Earth with a 50/50 attitude? Like, yep, hey, maybe this is going to be the one, sure, this guy seems really smart, I better listen up, he might not be like all the rest.
Or do I think, here we go again, take a pass through the argument, identify the errors, and, done?
"You think you're so perfect" is just your excuse for not facing up to how bad all the arguments for the existence of god on offer are.
Post a Comment