If determinism is true, the cause has to guarantee the effect. We often use the word "cause" to refer to things that influence,
but do not guarantee the effect, If determinism is true there are causes going back before you were born
that guarantee what you do now.
773 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 773 of 773SteveK,
It appears the answer to your question is that in the im-skeptical world, yes, rocks make choices just like you and me. So you should treat them exactly the same respect and dignity as you would im-skeptical. Rocks have rights too you know.
@bmiller
He hasn’t said otherwise so that is my conclusion based on what he has said so far
Looks like "incoherent" and "inconsistent" are synonyms
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/incoherent
So if something is inconsistent with human experience then it is incoherent with human experience.
I don't see the problem.
@im-skeptical
” You don't know philosophy. You don't know logic. You don't understand science.”
I know what you’ve said about “choice”, and it makes no sense for the same reason the term “square circle” makes no sense. You disagree, which is fine, however what we both agree on is that your philosophy doesn’t agree with human experience. If my philosophy said each of us are actually brains in a vat, we would both agree that this doesn’t agree with human experience. It’s not an insult, it’s just the truth.
StardustyPsyche said:
In 9) you use "cohere" in the sense of a perception or sensed experience being an accurate model of the true nature of the underlying reality.
Nope. Whether the experience is accurate to whatever extent or wholly inaccurate is irrelevant to the statement which is accurate across all of those accuracy possibilities. But, for you to recognize the truth of the immediately previous sentence, you will have to learn about the word cohere.
StardustyPsyche said:
In 10) you use "cohere" in the sense of an argument that is self consistent, that is, an argument that is logically valid per the generally agreed upon axioms of logic.
Nope. To cohere is "to stick together"; it is from the Latin "cohaereō ('cohere, cling (closely) together, harmonise, be consistent (with), be in agreement with')." Now that you understand what "cohere" means, you can see that I am not using "cohere" in the sense of "self-consistent"; you can see that I use it in the sense of "consistent with something other than itself". Determinism is not in agreement with the experience; determinism does not cohere with the experience; determinism is non-coherent with regards to the experience; determinism is incoherent (with the context providing the [with regards to the experience] made explicit for those who somehow are insensitive to context).
StardustyPsyche said:
That is a rather novel philosophical use of the term "incoherent".
Not really. There is coherentism in epistemology which holds that "for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must 'cohere' with one another." So, you see, we have a perfectly ordinary educated way of understanding and using "cohere", and we see that it has even shown up in philosophy before this discussion.
StardustyPsyche said:
Determinism is a coherent assertion in the sense that the assertion of determinism as the base mode of causal progressions does not require self-contradictory assertions.
Even if determinism is not self-contradictory, determinism does not cohere with human experience(s); determinism does not agree with human experience(s) as described experientially; determinism is not consistent with human experience(s) as described experientially; determinism is incoherent [with (regards to) human experience(s)]. It's a fact. Face up to it.
StardustyPsyche said:
So the statement "determinism is incoherent" is just an equivocation on the word "cohere".
No equivocation. Provocation maybe. But no equivocation. I realize that you staggered, that you wobbled, and that you are already down for the count even though you are not yet cognizant of that truth about the situation. But, if you were clear-headed right now, you would recognize that context provides for the statement to be understood as "determinism is incoherent [with (regards to) human experience(s)]". Now, the "determinism is incoherent" is also provocative; if this discussion were turned into an essay, its title could be "On the Incoherence of Determinism" or possibly "Determinism is Incoherent". Something like that.
StardustyPsyche said:
Put it another way:
Determinism is coherent (the assertion of determinism does not require the use of invalid logic).
It might be possible to present determinism in a self-consistent manner, but such a cocooning does not provide safe harbor from the fact that determinism is incoherent with regards to human experience(s). There are all sorts of alternative ways to express the "with regards to human experience(s)" phraseology, and there are alternative ways in which to express the fact of the incoherence, the incompatibility between determinism and the experience experienced. The would-be essay could be entitled "Determinism is Incompatible with Human Being".
The idea that science has settled the free will issue is laughable so “you don’t understand science” doesn’t carry the force that you think it does.
It’s June. Happy Christian Heritage Month everyone.
"He hasn’t said otherwise so that is my conclusion based on what he has said so far"
- The peanut gallery speaks again. I have said otherwise. If you had a brain, you could choose to read it. But obviously, you and Stevie don't.
bmiller,
"So if something is inconsistent with human experience then it is incoherent with human experience.
I don't see the problem"
The problem is substituting an arcane definition of the term "incoherent" in place of the ordinary definition of the term "incoherent" as used in philosophical discussions generally.
Michael has watered down the term "incoherent" such that it can be applied to anything.
Every idea is inconsistent with some other idea, therefore all ideas are "incoherent", making the term useless.
In philosophical discussions to say that X is "incoherent" is to say that it violates the commonly accepted axioms of logic, especially, that X is self-contradictory.
There is no god of the English language. Michael can define his own language if he wants to, but I simply am not interested in conversing in Michaelish.
Michael's action of using an arcane definition in place of common usage for "incoherent", and the ensuing equivocation whack-a-mole chatter that followed is why I prefer to establish agreed upon definitions for words like "choose", "think", "incoherent" and "exist" before delving very far into what does and does not fit those terms.
I find no value in arguing about what does and does not fit a term when we don't agree on what the term means.
“ I have said otherwise”
You didn’t say anything about flowers or rocks. Prove me wrong, liar.
Michael's action of using an arcane definition in place of common usage for "incoherent", and the ensuing equivocation whack-a-mole chatter that followed is why I prefer to establish agreed upon definitions for words like "choose", "think", "incoherent" and "exist" before delving very far into what does and does not fit those terms.
I find no value in arguing about what does and does not fit a term when we don't agree on what the term means.
Throw "hallucination" into the mix. Now you understand what it's like for others to deal with you.
StardustyPsyche said:
I simply am not interested in conversing in Michaelish.
You don't like "incoherent". Okay. So you can say that determinism is not consistent with human being or with the human experience of being or any number of other alternative expressions. What's the big deal? You are one who holds that the experience at issue is an illusion. My point about determinism not cohering or not being consistent with a particular human experience coheres with your claim that the very same experience is an illusion. The use of "incoherent" provoked you and, when you realized you had no effective rejoinder no matter how "incoherent" has been used and no matter what other expression can serve as substitute for "incoherent", you had a fit, a seizure. Is that the big deal? The seizing up of your intellect when faced with an insuperable difficulty for (the expression of) your viewpoint?
Kevin said:
Throw "hallucination" into the mix.
Ah, good point. I coulda shoulda said to StardustyPsyche, "My point about determinism not cohering or not being consistent with a particular human experience coheres with your claim that the very same experience is an hallucination."
Stardusty,
There is no god of the English language.
Then there should be no beef, eh?
Actually, Michael, it would be much more correct to say (based on your argument) that the subjective experience of choice is incoherent with respect to the philosophical stance of determinism, assuming you have a religious-based definition of choice that disagrees with the common usage of the word. If you then turn that into the statement "determinism is incoherent", you have then drawn an utterly unjustified conclusion from your argument. First, you reverse the order to make it "the philosophical stance of determinism is incoherent with respect to the subjective experience of choice", which is an attempt to assert that the experience is true, while the philosophy isn't. Then, having accomplished that sleight of hand, you drop any reference to the subjective experience to make it sound as if it is the philosophy itself that is internally incoherent, even though your argument doesn't even touch on that. It's a nice parlor trick, worthy of honorable mention in the rogues' gallery of dishonest religious arguments.
We should all listen to im-skeptical on this topic. If anyone is intimately familiar with incoherence it is he. Being the fine connisuer of incoherence that he is, he's sniffed out the incoherent order of how the existing incoherence was laid out thus spoiling the presentation.
Someone's manager is going to be talked to.
The reaction by proponents of determinism to the demonstration establishing the incoherence of determinism has been fascinating for multifarious reasons. The determinism proponents have no counter-arguments worthy of note (to be polite about it); they hand wave; they quiver and snivel over word choice, and they demand that specific words be used in the presentation and that those words mean only what the determinist proponents insist they mean. The determinism of nomological necessity is certainly an attempt at - and a hope for - a totalizing viewpoint, but that hardly seems to warrant totalitarianism on the part of the determinism proponents.
The determinism proponents first try to cower behind definitions, but, when they are shown how and why definitions cannot save them, they resort to ramblings about how determinism is not internally incoherent, about how it is, to quote StardustyPsyche, "self-consistent because it is self-consciously provisional". It is now time to establish how such a maneuver fails them as well.
For what is being internally coherent or being self-consistent sufficient?
Anyone? Anyone?
Internal consistency is sufficient only for stasis. For the pursuit of truth(s), stasis is anathema. StardustyPsyche's "self-consciously provisional" entails fully expecting encounters which are not consistent with or which do not cohere with the operative viewpoint, and what else is entailed is the fact that consistency is maintained thereafter only if one of the two incoherent aspects is rejected. As John F. Post notes in his book, The Faces of Existence: An Essay in Nonreductive Metaphysics, in the section regarding the prerequisites for truth and specifically the "Consistency with all other truths" prerequisite:
"If two or more beliefs are inconsistent with each other, at least one of them is untrue ... even if a cherished theory is self-consistent, it may not be consistent with other beliefs of which we are as fond. We may not know which belief to change, but something has to give" (emphasis added).
Proponents of determinism opted to dismiss human experience as illusion/epiphenomenon/hallucination in order to have a self-consistent determinism. That is just another way of saying that determinism does not cohere with human experience, that determinism is incoherent (with regards to human experience).
Is determinism incoherent with regards to introspection? Insofar as introspection will be tossed off as mere epiphenomenon, then introspection as experienced is an illusion. Is it illusions rather than turtles all the way down? It might ought to be turtles, because if it is illusions, then what is knowledge, what is knowing, what is learning, etc., etc.? Illusions all? Including science? Ridiculousness all the way down is more likely.
"(to be polite about it); they hand wave; they quiver and snivel over word choice ..."
- Do go on.
"try to cower behind definitions"
- If your argument assumes a definition that only religious people can agree to, then there is no reason to accept the premises of the argument. Your argument does that. YOUR definition of choosing assumes free will. And in doing so, it automatically rules out determinism. At that point, there is no need to continue, because the conclusion has already been assumed. I should point out to you that dictionary definitions do not include free will as part of the definition. They talk about "freely" choosing, which means without coercion. Your definition does not agree with the way the word is generally used in the English language.
"For what is being internally coherent or being self-consistent sufficient?"
- If you say that "determinism is incoherent", you are making a claim that the philosophical stance itself contains some elements that are inconsistent. Of course, you can't tell us what that inconsistency is.
"Proponents of determinism opted to dismiss human experience as illusion/epiphenomenon/hallucination in order to have a self-consistent determinism."
- That's a lie. I told you again and again that the only thing I have called an illusion in this entire discussion is the notion of conra-causal free will. But being the good little religious warrior that you are, you feel the need to dehumanize your ideological opponent - the "others" who don't share your own blinkered belief system.
"Is determinism incoherent with regards to introspection?"
- As I explained, the "experience" of making a choice is identical between us. What is different is our belief about the mechanism by which a choice is made. By my way of thinking, it is the brain that evaluates circumstances and options to choose the most favorable option. By your way of thinking, it is an immaterial entity that makes this decision. Either way, that actual mechanism is NOT part of the experience we perceive.
"Ridiculousness all the way down"
- Definitely. The naturalist/materialist has an explanation that is entirely consistent with human experience and his understanding of the natural world. Yours, on the other hand, relies on pixies and fairy dust, and doesn't cohere with a scientific understanding of reality.
YOUR definition of circles assumes no straight lines. And in doing so, it automatically rules out squares. At that point, there is no need to continue, because the conclusion has already been assumed.
Did I hear a rumbling from the peanut gallery? It's of no consequence.
Just sharing a complaint that I heard someone make the other day. The logic is flawless, right? I mean, the one person just assumed the definition that favored them rather than accept the other persons definition. Outrageous.
As I explained, the "experience" of making a choice is identical between us.
When robots tell us that they "experience" things identically to humans should we believe them?
It's identical except humans have the experience of being able to choose otherwise, whereas the robot does not. Have you never been behind someone in line who couldn't make up their mind? Robots don't pause like that.
"By your way of thinking, it is an immaterial entity that makes this decision."
No, that's a strawman. You're thinking of the ghost-in-the-machine view of human beings and some of us here don't agree with that. For us, there is only one entity. The entity that decides is matter of a particular form, and that form includes certain abilities. In the case of a functioning human being, it includes the ability to make decisions and think. This is no different than any other entity, living or not. Each functioning entity has a unique form with certain abilities.
* matter/form combo includes certain abilities.
(more correctly stated)
bmiller,
"When robots tell us that they "experience" things identically to humans should we believe them?"
As of 2:14 am Eastern Time on August 29th, 1997, yes.
I don't think Skynet claimed to have the same "experiences" as humans. Nor did the humans think that Skynet had the same "experiences" as them.
I'm not sure Skynet or the Terminator from the first movie ever experienced anything human-like, but the Terminator from the second movie, who had the capacity to learn from the humans he protected, started gaining some understanding of how humans tick emotionally. Far as I'm concerned, no other Terminator movies exist, so that's as far as one of them ever developed.
The robot from the movie Short Circuit that gets struck by lightning and gains sentience would be a much more difficult situation, as it is portrayed in every sense as thinking like a human, including emotional reactions. So either the arc completely restructured its logical architecture beyond anything human design can achieve, or the robots' normal decision-making capabilities were already on the same basic level as a human, just limited to military applications by programming.
Or, movies aren't bastions of deep thought.
Or, movies aren't bastions of deep thought.
Please don't imply we can "choose" to believe one or the other you religious warrior you!
In clown world, 'having a choice' is defined as having no ability to choose a different outcome.
In clown world, 'having no choice' is defined as having no ability to choose a different outcome.
In clown world, when a person says "You have a choice" or "You have no choice" they are saying the same thing.
*Honk*
bmiller
"I don't think Skynet claimed to have the same "experiences" as humans. Nor did the humans think that Skynet had the same "experiences" as them."
Self awareness is perhaps the most challenging experience to account for.
I have the experience of being self aware that I am thinking thoughts. That is what happened to Skynet on that date, in the story.
Can a material system have the experience of self awareness? You asked if we should believe the robot. That is the classic question regarding a philosophical zombie. How can a human being determine if the report of an experience is based on an actual experience or merely an algorithmically generated response that simulates the response provided by a system that has the actual experience?
Searle says "no" with respect to present day digital computers. In his view the hardware/software architecture of a present day computer cannot support or generate or be the basis of an emergent actual experience of self awareness.
How about a positronic brain with an emotion chip installed? Well, of course, like Skynet, commander Data is just another story. In both stories the answer is "yes".
The interesting thing about Searle is that he is also a materialist. So, it would seem that on his view only certain sorts of hardware can advance beyond a mere philosophical zombie and become truly self aware, conscious.
Unless computers can understand the meaning of what they are doing while manipulating "symbols" Searle claims they will not be doing what humans do. That means he thinks that computer hardware will never be able to do that because if it could it would no longer be computer hardware but something else.
Searle is a religionist. Don't expect to hear scientific reality from him. Modern AI does in fact understand meaning, just the same as your brain does. It parses your language and uses conceptual association to figure out what you're talking about and respond in a meaningful way. And if it's done right, you can't tell the difference. The days of religionists claiming that a machine can't do what the human mind does are over. And this is just the beginning.
Do dictionarys understand the meaning of the words in its pages? A machine is just a dictionary that can speak the words written on the pages.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The laws of physics determined the words that my will chose to use in that comment.
*honk*
The peanut gallery NEVER has anything intelligent to say. Best if you stay away from topics of which you are ignorant.
My decision to choose a particular word is determined
Pinocchio's algorithms are really subpar. It thinks that because he is unaware of a fact that others who are aware of that fact it is they who are malfunctioning instead of itself.
He should not suppress those automatic updates. One of them could fix his self-test program.
SteveK,
"My decision to choose a particular word is determined"
Indeed, which is one reason that I am not a hater, for the most part.
However, if we abstractly imagine you are a system separate from the rest of the cosmos, or at least, within a boundary we abstractly define at the apparent border between your body and materials you have contact with, then we can consider that processes outside that boundary can alter the material structures inside that boundary by passing particular sequences of material transfers across that boundary.
After that, your determined word choices will change.
So, chin up, stiff upper lip, hope springs eternal, you may yet change your determined word choices.
im-skeptical,
"Modern AI does in fact understand meaning, just the same as your brain does. It parses your language and uses conceptual association to figure out what you're talking about and respond in a meaningful way. And if it's done right, you can't tell the difference. The days of religionists claiming that a machine can't do what the human mind does are over."
Modern AI is a philosophical zombie. Searle remains correct in that respect.
"you can't tell the difference"
Clearly you have confused the inability of an outside observer to differentiate between actual experience versus algorithmically generated simulated reports of experience, as opposed to the experience being actual.
You have entirely missed the point of what a philosophical zombie is.
The fact that we can't tell the difference is irrelevant to the question of whether the experience is actual.
You have committed the fallacy of reification.
You have confused the model for the thing itself.
I am quite familiar with the concept of philosophical zombie. I am also familiar with John Searle, who writes religious bunkum for a religious audience that laps it up. He has no scientific background, and doesn't know the first thing about artificial intelligence, just like you. I always found it interesting that someone would call himself a "philosopher of mind" without having the slightest clue about how human cognition actually works. But there you have it. If I were you, I wouldn't place too much stock in what that guy says.
im-skeptical,
"I am quite familiar with the concept of philosophical zombie."
Then what's your excuse for committing the fallacy of reification, confusing the model for the thing itself?
I was just trying to make excuses for you, but it seems you have some deeper problem.
You reify the abstraction of a random variable.
You reify the simulated report of experience by a philosophical as if it were an actual experience.
Manifestly, you have a serious mental issue of some sort such that you routinely or repeatedly confuse the model for the thing itself.
Please don't make excuses for me. I am capable of thinking for and defending myself.
Then what's your excuse for committing the fallacy of reification, confusing the model for the thing itself?
-The whole concept of philosophical zombies was contrived as a thought experiment that supports the religious belief in non-physical mind (aka: soul). But for a materialist, it doesn't make logical sense when you think about how it is supposed to work. It is religious bunkum. Mind is a physical phenomenon.
You reify the abstraction of a random variable.
- You don't know what you're talking about. I don't believe any "random variable" exists. YOU reify a contrived hidden variable to try to make it seem as if there is no randomness in quantum physics. The majority of physicists don't agree with you, because there is no evidence for that. It is simply a throwback to ancient metaphysical concepts of causation that don't cohere with modern observations of certain aspects of physical reality.
You reify the simulated report of experience by a philosophical [zombie??] as if it were an actual experience.
- Nobody but you was talking about zombies. Experience is the mental phenomenon of perception. It is how conscious biological organisms internalize physical sensations the world and the things in it. And experience doesn't always reflect the reality. I seriously doubt you even understood the conversation related to experience.
Manifestly, you have a serious mental issue of some sort such that you attack the person who tries to tell you when your understanding falls short on some particular topic. Rather than making an effort achieve greater understanding, you just double down and make a real fool of yourself.
im-skeptical,
"But for a materialist, it doesn't make logical sense when you think about how it is supposed to work. It is religious bunkum. Mind is a physical phenomenon."
As I suspected, you have no displayed understanding of what is philosophical zombie is.
A philosophical zombie has nothing to do with religion, a supernatural mind, dualism, the soul, or any such nonsense.
A philosophical zombie is a system that is programmed or otherwise designed to respond algorithmically such that it reports that it is experiencing first person human experiences such as self awareness and qualia.
Further, the philosophical zombie is so well designed that its responses are humanly indistinguishable from genuine reports of such experiences, even though no such experiences have in fact occurred within the philosophical zombie system.
So, if you ask a human being to describe their experience of being self aware you will get various answers depending on who you ask and the words they choose. But those responses will be grounded in the fact that the human being did in fact experience self awareness as I do and as I provisionally postulate you do as well.
Likewise with qualia such as the experience of colors, tastes and sensory perceptions.
Furthermore regarding a whole range of human emotions and experienced responses, say, fear or surprise at a bang or a threat, love, sexual attraction, disgust for a human corpse, hunger, and on and on. When I report such experiences those reports are grounded in such actual experiences.
A philosophical zombie is so well designed, so comprehensively programmed or otherwise arranged that for every test of experience the philosophical zombie provides responses that are indistinguishable from a response grounded in a genuine human experience.
You said
"you can't tell the difference"
That is where you reified the zombie.
You confused your inability to distinguish a factually grounded report from a synthesized false report, with the actuality of the report.
For you, if the lie is indistinguishable from the truth then the lie becomes the truth.
There is your fallacy of reification.
Religion has nothing to do with your error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
im-skeptical,
"If the program being executed is a brain simulation, and if one makes the further assumption that brain simulations are conscious, then the simulation can have the same output as a conscious system, yet not be conscious.[40]"
Again confirming my suspicion, you have no displayed understanding of what a philosophical zombie is.
Your own link describes just what I said. The PZ has nothing to do with religion.
Of course theists and immaterialists inject their nonsense ideas about the soul or god or whatever into the PZ idea, which they do for pretty much everything. The propensity for a theist to put goddunnit at the base of everything is irrelevant.
bmiller asked if we should believe the robot about a report of experience. As of June 2024 the answer is "no".
Right now any demonstration of artificial consciousness is just a superficial parlor trick. If anybody could build a conscious machine that would be pretty dramatic, Nobel prize winning and world fame level dramatic. It hasn't happened.
Nobody has really built a philosophical zombie yet either, but folks are getting close and the PZ is a realistic fairly near term goal or possibility. Right now AI is getting pretty good. You might be fooled by a couple sentences of response, but AI right now will fail any extensive test of simulated consciousness and simulated experience.
OK. Well, I thought you might at least have read the wiki article on philosophical zombies and seen just how wrong you are (obviously, you didn't - or you just don't understand what it says). You have indeed made a real fool of yourself. Again. You have been wrong about so many things, it is no wonder they like to keep you around here. It makes for an easy win in any argument you get involved in. A bit of advice for someone in your shoes: have a small measure of humility.
im-skeptical: "The whole concept of philosophical zombies was contrived as a thought experiment that supports the religious belief in non-physical mind (aka: soul)."
Stardusty: "Your own link describes just what I said. The PZ has nothing to do with religion."
im-skeptical: "Well, I thought you might at least have read the wiki article on philosophical zombies and seen just how wrong you are (obviously, you didn't - or you just don't understand what it says)"
I read the Wikipedia article and I couldn't find anything related to the origin of the PZ concept being a religious thought experiment. Your anti-religious bias operating under a deterministic reality caused you to see something in the article that isn't there.
Your own link describes just what I said. The PZ has nothing to do with religion."
- "A philosophical zombie (or "p-zombie") is a being in a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that is physically identical to a normal human being but does not have conscious experience.[1]"
"Zombie arguments often support lines of reasoning that aim to show that zombies are metaphysically possible in order to support some form of dualism—in this case the view that the world includes two kinds of substance (or perhaps two kinds of property): the mental and the physical.[21]"
Now I ask you: what kind of people believe in dualism? Religious people do. Oh sure, there are some "philosophers of mind", like Searle, who supposedly doesn't believe in God, but who still make arguments that support the concept of an immaterial soul. That's why religious people love him. But there is nothing in science that supports any kind of immaterial mind. And Searle is definitely no scientist. Any so-called scientist who argues in favor of mind/body dualism is really just a religious apologist in disguise.
"I read the Wikipedia article and I couldn't find anything related to the origin of the PZ concept being a religious thought experiment."
- You didn't read the definition of p-zombie. Furthermore, your whole shtick about the brain simulation is not really an example of a p-zombie (which, by definition is physically identical to a human), but of a computational device that is functionally like a p-zombie. So it has been called "a type of philosophical zombie".
"Any so-called scientist who argues in favor of mind/body dualism is really just a religious apologist in disguise"
The non-religious are now religious apologists. LOL. You really are an unserious, but funny guy.
If you want examples of these so-called scientists, look at who's being paid by the Templeton Foundation.
And a conspiracy theorist to boot.
https://www.batempleton.org/knowledge-base-detail/5d32104b4c5b619069a35a75
https://www.templeton.org/religion-science-and-society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
What those other links say is that Stardust and I were correct about the Wikipedia article. Thanks.
What those other links say is that Templeton is a religious organization that makes grants to people who produce religion-friendly research and papers that claim to be scientific. As for people like Searle, there is money in what he publishes, because the religious audience is much larger than the atheist audience. And he's not the only one who's in it for the money.
None of that information was in the Wikipedia article on PZ.
I thought you might at least have read the wiki article on PZs and seen just how wrong you are. Obviously, you didn't - or you just don't understand what it says.
There's really no point in trying to argue with the peanut gallery. Reason is not their forte.
What about the person who prefers dishonesty over reason?
Plenty of that here.
Peanuts are part of the conspiracy? Who knew?
As an aside, I would have thought someone old enough to be using the term "peanut gallery" would have had enough time to read what philosophers actually say or at least to be aware of logical fallacies and try to avoid them
"Plenty of that here"
A few enjoying hanging around here. Is there a point in arguing with such people? Let me know.
Like arguing with a robot missing a few kilobytes.
An AI language model taught on New Atheist writings would be hilarious to interact with. Someone needs to make that happen.
Wait. You mean we haven't been talking to one?
bmiller,
"Wait. You mean we haven't been talking to one?"
Exactly, on a PZ you wouldn't be able to tell.
Come to think of it, you are all probably just simulations! Oh wait, did I just say that? Guess that makes me religious because I am using a thought experiment that some religious folks adapted for their arguments...surrrreee, impeccable logic there.
im-skeptical said...
*Your own link describes just what I said. The PZ has nothing to do with religion.*
- "A philosophical zombie (or "p-zombie") is a being in a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that is physically identical to a normal human being but does not have conscious experience.[1]"
By your own highlighted definition a PZ is "thought experiment" "that is physically identical".
So, by your own highlighted definition the imagined PZ is imagined to be "physical". There is no mention of religion, soul, or any sort of immaterial in the definition you chose to highlight. Yet you somehow see such in it. You are projecting, obviously, the proof is right in the plain text of your own highlighted definition.
Im-skeptical,
"Zombie arguments often support lines of reasoning that aim to show that zombies are metaphysically possible in order to support some form of dualism".
Genetic fallacy.
Religious people figured out X therefore X is religious.
Religious people assert immaterial as the reason for Y therefore the observation of Y is an endorsement of immaterial.
You may be skeptical but logical you ain't.
Most of the major advancements in physics and mathematics a the past few centuries have been made by Christians and Jews. Therefore, physics and mathematics are Judeo-Christian beliefs, by your "logic".
Of course, a great many apologists do make related claims, that we owe our science to Christianity, or that god created both physics and math, or even that god sustains the whole of existence from moment to moment and is thus the fundamental cause of all observed physics.
As a thought experiment there is no necessity to invoke immaterial to account for a PZ. The depiction of a purely physical android that does not actually experience qualia or consciousness yet appears to be fully human, is a staple of science fiction.
More realistic is the possibility of creating textual AI that corresponds in writing in a manner that is indistinguishable from human correspondence.
It doesn't matter if you think Searle is a closet immaterialist, his Chinese room thought experiment explanation remains valid. Algorithmically manipulating symbols in patterns that are humanly indistinguishable from human manipulation of symbols is not sufficient to establish that the algorithmic system is conscious.
im-skeptical,
*You reify the abstraction of a random variable.*
"I don't believe any "random variable" exists."
Of course you do. You have said it clearly multiple times. QM follows the mathematical expressions of the wave function, which is a description of a real probability distribution.
That is what one does in math with a random variable, abstractly assign to it a probability distribution function.
In math there is no pretense of physical realization, rather, the random variable with its probability distribution is only an abstraction. In math it is OK to say that nothing causes the probability distribution and nothing caused each abstracted event because there are no real events, just abstractions of imagined events.
But in QM the events are real. Yet, you maintain that "nothing" causes real events.
Nothing causes something, for you. That is the reification of an abstraction. The abstraction is the random variable with the distribution described by the wave function. You assert that "nothing" causes real events, which is your reification.
In math "nothing" causes no real events.
For you that same "nothing" causes real events, there is your reification.
" YOU reify a contrived hidden variable"
That is like accusing me or reifying dark matter and reifying dark energy and reifying fields. Yes, I assert that there are real physical processes at the base of those placeholder names we give to observed events.
Yes, I reify observations of real effects.
Real effects are real, yes, guilty as charged.
"The majority of physicists don't agree with you,"
Argumentum ad populum.
A truism of physics is that the better the physicist is at physics the worse he or she is at two things, teaching and philosophy. That is not a hard absolute necessity, of course, just a general trend I am not the first to observe.
I will provide two exceptions to that truism you might wish to study.
John Stewart Bell
Gerard 't Hooft
"ancient metaphysical concepts of causation that don't cohere with modern observations"
There are no observations of nothing causing something. Zero.
There are observations for which complete explanations have not yet been formulated. That is what science does, observe effects and go looking for the underlying mechanisms that account for those effects.
In science we typically invent a name for the suspected thing we are looking for.
Higgs boson
Strings
Black hole
Chaotic non-local hidden variables
Dark energy
Dark matter
Gravity wave
In science, yes, we say there are real physical processes behind every effect.
If you say "nothing" did something then you have given up on science. You might just as well become a theist.
If you say "nothingdunnit" you might just as well say "goddunnit". At least with "goddunnit" there is something causing the observed effects, god. "Goddunnit" doesn't really explain anything, only pushes the problem back a step, but at least "goddunnit" is a case of something doing something.
"Nothingdunnit" is a case of nothing doing something, which is an abandonment of the scientific method. In science we go looking for causes of effects. That is what science is, a methodology and a body of knowledge and a community dedicated to looking for causes of observed effects.
You propose, albeit unwittingly, an end to science, an end to looking for causes of effects. You are manifestly satisfied with giving up the search for causes and just declare "nothing" caused the effect.
"If you say "nothing" did something then you have given up on science. You might just as well become a theist. "
- I didn't say that. Those are YOUR words, not mine. I said there is no observable triggering cause for quantum events. I said that if there is a cause, it isn't due to any moving particle that collides or imparts momentum. It isn't due to any electromagnetic, gravitational, strong or weak force. As far as we can see, it just happens. Now, if you want to insist that the Principle of Sufficient Reason must apply, you should be aware that that was postulated long ago from observances of non-quantum phenomena. It simply doesn't apply in the realm of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, the laws of physics (quantum or otherwise) are not defined in terms of causation or causal factors. There simply is no PSR in modern physics. Of course there are some physicists, notably Bohm, who can't let go of the PSR, and who contrive these so-called "hidden variables" that might account for causation, provided they can be linked to some causal physical mechanism. The problem with that is there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE to support such a notion. And that's why the majority of the scientific community doesn't accept Bohmian quantum mechanics.
And, no - I don't propose an end of science. I don't hold any religious belief in the PSR like you do. I base my beliefs on evidence, unlike you. And that is the true basis of science. If and when the time comes that observations lead to the discovery of a causal mechanism (or some other explanation) for quantum events, I will happily go with the evidence. Because unlike you, I AM a scientist. I've actually worked in scientific fields my entire adult life. Now it's time for you to shut up and go back to playing in your little sandbox.
"Goddunnit" doesn't really explain anything, only pushes the problem back a step"
Only a New Atheist goofball would say God doesn't explain anything. You don't have to believe in God to understand that God explains everything
I AM a scientist. I've actually worked in scientific fields my entire adult life.
So it appears that one can be both bad at science and bad at philosophy. Using the "How dare you! Don't you know who I am?" argument is just a variant of the fallacy of argument from authority.
Time for someone to get their money back for this AI version.
"If and when the time comes that observations lead to the discovery of a causal mechanism (or some other explanation) for quantum events, I will happily go with the evidence."
If the evidence shows the PSR does not apply, why would a scientist spend any time or money looking for a sufficient reason? Imagine a company telling a group of investors that there's no evidence for X - not a shred - however we need to hire scientists and buy equipment to help us find X.
?If the evidence shows the PSR does not apply, why would a scientist spend any time or money looking for a sufficient reason? Imagine a company telling a group of investors that there's no evidence for X - not a shred - however we need to hire scientists and buy equipment to help us find X."
- What a stupid comment. There isn't evidence for anything until it is discovered. It should be noted (for those in the audience here who have little or no understanding) that causation (in a casual sense) applies in the everyday world of non-quantum phenomena. And yes, in quantum mechanics there is always investigation relating to the motion of particles. There is always a quest to achieve deeper understanding. As SP points out, the Nobel Prize winner Bell did experiments relating to hidden variables. But the part that SP doesn't want to highlight is that his experiments DISPROVED hidden variables, at least in a local context (which just happens to be 99% of quantum physics). It didn't disprove non-local hidden variables, because that wasn't in the scope of the experiment. And SP is too dim to realize that Bohmian mechanics is practically dead.
"What a stupid comment"
I agree. It's stupid because I assumed what you believed to be true. You assumed that the PSR is something that science can discover. You believe the PSR is observed at the macro level, but it's nowhere to be found at the quantum level. Yes, it's a stupid belief and if that stupidity is fully embraced you get the situation that I described. Stupid is as stupid does.
"There is always a quest to achieve deeper understanding"
Why? Because the PSR is a fundamental principle that drives the methods of science. Why look for anything or observe/examine anything if there isn't a sufficient reason for doing so? The PSR is always affirmed.
Well if there's anything to really be illustrated here, much like the Atheism+ schism, it's that somehow those powerful reasoning abilities only seem to agree on "there is no god". Anything else is fair game for disagreement.
Almost makes one wonder precisely how much reasoning went into the anti-God beliefs. Almost.
Hey, Kevin. Show me some REAL objective evidence for God, and I'll believe.
I'm a professionally trained logical commentator. I've been honing my craft on the internet for 20 years. I'm trained, I'm experienced, I'm right and you're wrong.
Step 1: What would count as REAL objective evidence for God?
"It's stupid because I assumed what you believed to be true. You assumed that the PSR is something that science can discover. You believe the PSR is observed at the macro level, but it's nowhere to be found at the quantum level."
- More stupidity. The PSR isn't observed at all. It is assumed. Before the 20th century, everything we could observe had a cause. And of course, we never observed any quantum phenomena. So, because everything we saw did seem to have a cause, the idea of universal causation was assumed to be true. Now, we have good reason to doubt the truth of that assumption. But after so many years of believing it, it has become like religious beliefs. You can't question it without being subject to ridicule by the ignorant and the scientifically uninformed.
"Step 1: What would count as REAL objective evidence for God?"
- I have no idea. You show me. You're the one who believes.
"everything we saw did seem to have a cause, the idea of universal causation was assumed to be true. Now, we have good reason to doubt the truth of that assumption."
We saw and have reason to assume, but now we don't see and have no reason to assume.
"The PSR isn't observed at all"
Keep digging that hole.
"I have no idea"
If you have no idea then how will you be able to recognize it as REAL evidence?
It would have to be observable, and it would have to logically be best explained by the God hypothesis.
In your mind, what would you count as being best explained by the God hypothesis? Give us an example.
People have given such examples before. Like the stars moving to clearly spell out words saying "I am your God. Believe in me." There have been many such examples offered. What is common among them is that they aren't explainable by nature - only God could accomplish something like that. Of course, whenever such an example is offered, the religionist complains "well, that's unreasonable because we all know that will never happen." But if it did happen, it would be evidence.
"What is common among them is that they aren't explainable by nature - only God could accomplish something like that"
Isn't this a gap argument? Is God-of-the-Gaps reasoning a valid way to arrive at the belief that God exists?
Call it what you want. Science reasons to the best explanation.
If "Nature can't explain X, therefore God" is valid reasoning then I don't understand the complaints about people believing in God. I can list several statements that follow the same god-of-the-gaps reasoning.
Again with the stupidity. Reasoning to the best explanation does not mean assuming God whenever you have a gap in your understanding. Such is the case with religionist theories of mind. It's true that science doesn't have all the answers. But there is more than ample evidence to conclude that mind is a physical phenomenon. On that basis, God did it is not assumed to be the answer. In the case of stars spelling out words, there is an evident violation of laws of nature, and that's not just a hole within the existing scientific framework of understanding that has yet to be filled in. It's something altogether outside that framework.
"they aren't explainable by nature - only God"
Blame the stupidity on yourself. Those are your words.
Hey, Kevin. Show me some REAL objective evidence for God, and I'll believe.
I have not personally seen REAL objective evidence for many things I accept as true, for example the quantum effects being discussed in this thread. So then it comes down to, despite my not personally observing this evidence, do I still have good reason to accept it from those who have? Well that then comes down to the nature of the subject being discussed, the credibility of the experts in question, and so on.
Point being, each of us has a standard of evidence to be met depending on the subject at hand, and that standard is heavily influenced by strongly-held beliefs and strongly-felt feelings. No amount of evidence will convince some people of certain things depending on how emotionally invested they are on a subject.
All that to say, when an atheist says they will believe if shown evidence, I have no reason whatsoever to assume that is true, unless, of course, I have evidence to the contrary. All I have in this thread are two atheists insulting each other when one (or both) is obviously wrong, but neither will back down.
The standard of evidence for God is in practice impossible to meet for those invested in their lack of belief. No offense.
Why are stars spelling out "I am your God. Believe in me" a violation of nature when we don't necessary know that is true. Your reasoning relies on a knowledge gap. Stars move around naturally and there's no reason why they can't naturally align to spell this out, similar to a cloud that forms the pattern that looks like Mickey Mouse.
"despite my not personally observing this evidence, do I still have good reason to accept it from those who have?"
- That's the beauty of OBJECTIVE evidence. It's not just one guy claiming he saw something. It's observable by anyone. And in the case of science, it MUST BE observed by others before it is accepted by the scientific community. You can reject it if you want.
"No amount of evidence will convince some people of certain things depending on how emotionally invested they are on a subject."
- That's true. Everyone is subject to biases and deeply held beliefs. The best we can do is to take measures to reduce those influences on our thinking. That's why science has independent verification, peer review, and so on.
"All I have in this thread are two atheists insulting each other when one (or both) is obviously wrong, but neither will back down."
- That's not exactly true. I have shown SP papers and articles that directly contradict his claims, and he still fails to back down. The best outcome I have seen is with regard to his claims about what Bell has done. I showed him that it wasn't what he thought, and he has changed his stance now, but still not backed off the basic claim. In the case of philosophical zombies, I showed him an article that explains what they are (which is not what he was saying) and he still hasn't backed down or admitted that he was wrong. And the pattern repeats. If someone cares to show documentary evidence to dispute what I claim, I welcome that. I'm waiting.
"Why are stars spelling out "I am your God. Believe in me" a violation of nature when we don't necessary know that is true. Your reasoning relies on a knowledge gap."
- No, we don't necessarily know it's true. But we do know that stars follow orbits around the center of the galaxy. And if they suddenly deviate drastically from that orbital path, that would be a violation of physical law, assuming we can't come up with some other explanation for it (and if we do, then so be it). The thing is, in our world, we have no objective observations of such a violation. Not once - not ever. And you can proclaim all the miracles you want, but I say "show me", with confidence that you will never do that. Now please stop making me waste my time with your ignorant objections.
You religionists are just too close-minded!
There is no God and there is no way you will ever convince me because im-skeptical (I'm defining skeptical as meaning open-minded...Don't argue with me. I'm the one making the definitions here). If you disagree with me you are either overtly a religionist or are in the covert religionist conspiracy (once again, I am the one making the definitions so shut up).
We know non-living things follow the natural path of remaining non-living things. If they suddenly, dramatically, become living things then that would be a violation of physical law.
Here's the rejoinder:
It's NOT a violation of physical laws for stars to remain in their natural orbits and form a unique pattern that appears like words when viewed from a specific perspective.
Your gap-reasoning assumed a violation.
Suppose stars suddenly deviate drastically from their orbital path, scientists watching would tell us that some unexplained, never-seen-before natural event has occurred - but im-skeptical says, no, that is evidence for God.
im-skeptical,
"As SP points out, the Nobel Prize winner Bell did experiments relating to hidden variables."
Bell did not win a Nobel Prize.
You are an obvious phony.
SteveK,
*"Goddunnit" doesn't really explain anything, only pushes the problem back a step"*
"Only a New Atheist goofball would say God doesn't explain anything. You don't have to believe in God to understand that God explains everything"
The speculation of god explains nothing because all the same questions apply to god just as well.
For example:
Q-How could the universe have been created out of nothing or always exist?
A-God created the universe.
Q-How could god have been created out of nothing or always exist?
See, the speculation goddunnit didn't explain anything, just pushed the problem back a step.
"You are an obvious phony."
- Excuse me. My mistake. And you still don't know what you are talking about. You don't know philosophy. You don't know statistics. You don't know physics. You never admit that you're wrong. And you have no humility.
And you still don't know what you are talking about. You don't know philosophy. You don't know statistics. You don't know physics. You never admit that you're wrong. And you have no humility.
That just broke my irony meter. Gonna have to take it back to the shop.
Oh, the irony. And you? You go around exhibiting the love that your savior preached? Ha!
God has a sense of humor. We are meant to laugh at risible things. It's what separates us from robots. ;-)
God may have a sense of humor, but the joke's on you, hypocrite.
What are you trying to do? Kill my irony meter permanently R2-D2?
im-skeptical,
"- Excuse me. My mistake."
Well, that is just one bit of evidence.
You said the cause of QM events is nothing, but then you try to deny what you did in fact say.
You claimed that we have observations of nothing causing something, until every other person on this thread pointed out to you that you have your "logic" backwards.
You said a philosophical zombie was religious nonsense, but your own definitions are only physical.
I have diminished expectations from theists, so I suppose I am guilty of holding you to a scientifically minded atheist level of expectations, perhaps unfairly, maybe you are a kid trolling in the basement and we just need to give you a couple decades to formulate some sound ideas.
You are on the right track in rejecting religion, that is a good start, but not sufficient. Here are a few things you might want to keep in mind.
Physicists tend to be rather poor philosophers.
Just because certain ideas are coopted for religions arguments does not make the root ideas intrinsically religious.
Reliance on authority and popularity runs a high risk of being wrong.
"Well, that is just one bit of evidence."
- Oops. I named the wrong guy. You got the physics wrong, and I had to correct you, because you didn't understand it.
"You said the cause of QM events is nothing, but then you try to deny what you did in fact say."
- Stop putting your words in my mouth. I said there is no observable cause.
"You claimed that we have observations of nothing causing something,"
- Stop lying about what I said. I said observations don't show any causal mechanism.
"You said a philosophical zombie was religious nonsense, but your own definitions are only physical."
- At least I understand what the definition is. It is non-materialist nonsense. And most people who believe that are religious, but anybody who believes that the concept of a p-zombie is coherent can't be a materialist. Some push that concept to a religious audience for financial reward.
"maybe you are a kid trolling in the basement and we just need to give you a couple decades to formulate some sound ideas."
- Maybe you need to acquire some additional education. I'm not lying about my own education and my professional experience. The only reason you get away with saying things like this is because most people here don't know the difference. For Kevin and anyone else here who sees all this as just two atheists who disagree and won't back down, my suggestion is to do some research of your own. Find out who is correct and who is the "kid trolling in the basement". And while SP wants to wait a few decades to see if I'll come around to his way of thinking, I don't have that long left to see if he'll ever learn something.
"Reliance on authority and popularity runs a high risk of being wrong."
- Unless, of course, the authority is the actual community of experts. Not only am I in sync with the mainstream scientific community, I'm part of it. You are aligned with a small minority, whose views are ideologically based, but lack supporting evidence.
"Stop putting your words in my mouth."
You said 'nothing' multiple times. This exchange is from the first page of comments. There are many more like it.
-------------------------
Question: "If there is no cause, that is, if stuff just pops off any old which way for no reason at all, just poof, then what gives rise to a particular probability distribution? Makes no sense."
im-skeptical response: "It's not any old which way. It goes according to a mathematical formula, which is a probability distribution. What gives rise to that? Nothing. That's just how nature works."
There is one thing that Stardusty gets right. im-skeptical is the poster boy for the Genetic Fallacy.
It's almost like he thinks using it is some sort of "kill shot" in an argument rather than being embarrassed at using it. Everyone that disagrees with him is a "religionist" so no need to listen to them, but I listen to "scientists" and I am one myself, so what I say is unassailable. Both ends of the genetic fallacy right there.
I like this quote:
the genetic fallacy generally as "the substitution of psychology for logic".
No need to exercise logic when you can dismiss your opponent on irrelevant grounds.
Hey, bmiller, do you know what a fallacy is? I call people religionists if that's what they are. I don't use it as a logical ploy in my arguments.
You have logical arguments?
And you still don't know what you are talking about. You don't know philosophy. You don't know statistics. You don't know physics. You never admit that you're wrong. And you have no humility.
And for SteveK, I'm sure the difference is to subtle for you to grasp, but I would never say "nothing causes something", as SP phrased it, as if "nothing" (the subject of the sentence) is the thing that causes something.
1) I would never say "nothing causes something"
2) What gives rise to that? Nothing.
1) puh-TAY-toh
2) puh-TAH-toh
The difference between 1 and 2 is subtle.
And TOTALLY over your head.
Said Humpty Dumpty
So far it's over the head of everyone reading this conversation. Either you are an exceptionally insightful and intelligent person, or you don't communicate very well. You haven't demonstrated that it's the former so I'm going with the latter.
I'm starting to feel sorry for this guy. He must have driven away any possible friends in real life and maybe this is all the interaction he gets nowadays. He seems old, lonely and bitter.
Hey, what about me, don't I get some of that well deserved pity?
Or does the Christian proverb "There but for the grace of God go I" only go so far, and in my case, perhaps I am so irretrievably lost, so utterly irredeemable, so hopelessly incorrigible, so irreparably damaged that even a person of your vast magnanimity and Christian empathy cannot muster the fortitude to grant such as I your grace? After all, that would be a task beyond any mere mortal, of which only the divine is capable.
Hey, what about me, don't I get some of that well deserved pity?
Take heart. You are old and bitter and I do pity you for wasting away your time arguing (poorly) with spatio-temporal changes of arrangements that don't exist.
Take heart. You are old and bitter and I do pity you for wasting away your time arguing (poorly) with spatio-temporal changes of arrangements that don't exist.
You spout gibberish. Material has always existed and will always exist, so as a spatio-temporal arrangement of eternal material, he is both inconceivably old and yet has barely begun his existence.
And how can one be bitter when bitterness is just an illusory experience of a mind that doesn't exist?
SP believes nothing ceases to exist or begins to exist so she certainly is really old. Upon her death she continues to exist. Where are her deceased relatives right now? Perhaps some of them are circling Uranus
bmiller,
"I do pity you"
Oh, ok, whew, that had me worried there for a minute, my non-existent self feels much better now!
Kevin,
"You spout gibberish. Material has always existed and will always exist, so as a spatio-temporal arrangement of eternal material, he is both inconceivably old and yet has barely begun his existence."
In what sense is that gibberish?
Indeed, I very much doubt that any human being can fully grasp, conceive of, the age of that which necessarily exists.
"yet has barely begun his existence."
How does one compare a past infinite with a future infinite to determine a fraction of each we are presently at in time? Inconceivable indeed.
If we put infinity in the numerator with, say, 1 in the denominator we say the expression "blows up". With the inverse case we say the expression "goes to zero".
What what do we say when infinity is in both the numerator and the denominator?
But hold on, the future time cannot be infinite, no matter how long time continues, since any and every future time will be a finite time from now. But it would seem that a necessary being would be past infinite, yet an infinite time is incoherent. Suppose a being can exist without time, but in that case how can such a being have a past or do anything at all? An unsolved riddle indeed.
"And how can one be bitter when bitterness is just an illusory experience of a mind that doesn't exist?"
Bitterness simply is a spatio-temporal process of existent materials, that's how.
SteveK,
"Perhaps some of them are circling Uranus"
Will you please invite me to your middle school graduation?
bmiller,
Is it my sarcasm that whooshed over Stardusty's head, or his that whooshed over mine, or a causal chain of whooshed sarcasm?
At base all whooshing is mutual ;-)
bmiller,
"At base all whooshing is mutual"
Indeed, which is why a first unwhooshed whoosher is unnecessary.
At base all theories asserting mutual motion are circular arguments. Including whooshing theories.
bmiller,
Supposing whooshing is linear, or hierarchical.
Then we ask, what whooshed Z?
Y
Ok, what whooshed Y?
X
Ok, what whooshed X?
W
I'm getting tired of this, I don't know many whooshers are in this whooshing sequence but it cannot go to infinity therefore there is a first whoosher.
Supposing, however, that all whooshing is mutual.
What whooshed Z?
Y and Z together.
Ok, but what whooshed Y?
Y and Z together?
Done.
Problem solved. The whooshing regression terminates finitely in the mutual whooshing of Y and Z. No other whoosher is necessary.
A circle is indeed sometimes considered, well, circular, a sort of infinite shape with no beginning and no end, yet the circle is finite.
StardustyPsyche,
What whooshed Z?
Y and Z together.
If Y and Z are both required for Z to be whooshed, then Z would have to both be responsible for whooshing itself and be whooshed by itself at the same time and in the same respect which is impossible. Circular causation as well as circular argumentation is illogical. But why stop at merely one instance of illogic when you can help yourself to 2? Whooshing does not even exist per eliminative materialism so you've doubled your fun.
Logic suggests there exists something other than the material that is creating the forces that change.
For SPs theory of mutual causation, let's assume the force is identical to the material, so F=X=Y=Z. In that scenario they all change together, mutually, regardless of their relative positions to each other. There can never be a moment in time without change because no material ceases to exist otherwise F goes to zero.
SP says there are moments without change so this scenario cannot be the case. Therefore, the theory of mutual causation must involve matter (an infinite amount of Xs,Ys,Zs even) and something else (G) that is responsible for the changing force (F).
The other scenario would be if F is not separate from the material, but is only identical in some material and not others. So, say, F is identical to material X only but not Y and Z. That destroys the mutual causation theory because only Xs cause change. Either way, mutual causation is logically defeated.
** There can never be a moment in time without change because no material ceases to exist which is the only situation where F ever goes to zero.
(more clear way of saying it)
"Z would have to both be responsible for whooshing itself and be whooshed by itself at the same time and in the same respect which is impossible."
In the interactions of Y and Z designations of self whooshing, or whooshing the other are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
There is only the mutuality.
Supposing a big rock Y could be alone in space. It isn't going to move itself anywhere.
Supposing another big rock Z could be along in space. It also isn't going to move itself anywhere.
But now supposing rock Y and rock Z are near each other.
Does rock Y move itself toward rock Z?
Does rock Z move itself toward rock Y?
Does rock Y move rock Z?
Does rock Z move rock Y?
In
F = G*My*Mz*r^2
such questions are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
There is only the F of the mutual attraction between Y and Z.
SteveK said...
"There can never be a moment in time without change because no material ceases to exist which is the only situation where F ever goes to zero."
Right, ideally, everything in the cosmos is always mutually changing with everything else.
I say "ideally" because real change requires time to propagate over distance. Further, there are unsettled questions about quantization of forces, space, and time, so there could be practical limits wherein the influence materials have on distance materials goes to zero.
But yes, there is never a time when the arrangement of material is static.
The amount of material that exists in the cosmos is always static.
All causal influences are mutual at base.
There are no self-contradictions in my materialism.
Let me remind you what you said about arrangement of material.
Kevin: "Somehow the material of the arrangement exists, but the arrangement of material does not exist."
SP: “Bingo”
Now you say “there is never a time when the arrangement of material is static.” This is a contradiction.
“There is only the F of the mutual attraction between Y and Z”
Because only material exists, F must be material. So material F moves materials Y and Z?
In the interactions of Y and Z designations of self whooshing, or whooshing the other are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
Yes, your claims are impossible and meaningless even within the system you claim to hold. You've claimed that "running" doesn't exist and so it must follow that any motion does not exist either. If motion doesn't exist, then forces must not exist either since the definition of force involves motion.
There are no self-contradictions in my materialism.
Your materialism is entirely incoherent and self-contradictory even from one time you espouse something to the next.
There are no self-contradictions in my materialism
There's that blind faith again.
SteveK ,
Let me remind you what you said about arrangement of material.
Kevin: "Somehow the material of the arrangement exists, but the arrangement of material does not exist."
SP: “Bingo”
Now you say “there is never a time when the arrangement of material is static.” This is a contradiction.
Only the material itself exists.
The arrangement of material does not exist.
Arrangement is not an existent thing, rather, a relationship between existent things.
A process is not an existent thing, rather, a time sequence of various arrangements of existent material.
SteveK,
*“There is only the F of the mutual attraction between Y and Z”*
"Because only material exists, F must be material. So material F moves materials Y and Z?"
Right, what is the F exactly? Some people say that the F is only apparent, and really what is going on is the curvature of spacetime. Fine, but that calls for the question of what is spacetime. But yes, spacetime is material.
The materialist assertion is not that there is no base, no first.
There can be a first.
There cannot be an UNMOVED first.
Nothing in our macro level observations makes an UNMOVED first NECESSARY.
The arrangement of material does not exist.
Arrangement is not an existent thing, rather, a relationship between existent things.
A process is not an existent thing, rather, a time sequence of various arrangements of existent material.
1: Arrangement does not exist.
2. Arrangement is a relationship
So arrangement does not exist, yet does exist. Contradiction #1
3. Process does not exist.
4. Process is a time sequence of various non-existent things (see 2 above)
So process both does not exist but does exist. Contradiction #2. But when it is in the latter condition of the contradiction it exists as a derivative of another contradiction. I suppose that doesn't even have enough rational content to rise to the level of a contradiction.
You agree that F moves X and Y. F is first and mutual causation is not a valid theory.
SP: "there is never a time when the arrangement of material is static"
SP: "Arrangement is...a relationship between existent things"
The arrangement is not the material. The change you speak of (the relationship) is not referring to the material. In your reply the material itself is not changing and you have said in the past that Xs, Ys and Zs can remain static (unchanging) therefore my statement below is confirmed by you.
Me: "For SPs theory of mutual causation, let's assume the force is identical to the material, so F=X=Y=Z. In that scenario they all change together, mutually, regardless of their relative positions to each other. There can never be a moment in time without change because no material ceases to exist otherwise F goes to zero.
SP says there are moments without change so this scenario cannot be the case."
So what's going on? You seem to agree with the logical argument when you retreat from mutual causation and say "There can be a first". In your example you agree that F is moving Y and Z.
Arrangement is not an existent thing, rather, a relationship between existent things.
That doesn't work. Actions can only occur between things that exist. Nothing results in nothing, so for an action to occur, something has to cause it. So something has to exist or else nothing happens.
One relationship/arrangement of existent material (EM) - say, plutonium - packed into a bomb will destroy a city with the energy released, while another - Mountain Dew - packed into a bomb will do nothing except confuse the responders. Clearly the arrangement of EM matters, or else the effect would be the same. Stuff doing stuff.
But, for two arrangements of EM to differ when subjected to the same process, there has to be a difference. Nothing is not different from nothing, or else it would be something. For there to be a difference of any sort, it has to involve at least two somethings. But EM at base is the same, so how can there be a difference if EM is the same?
The difference lies in the arrangement of EM. One arrangement blows up cities, another causes a puddle in a crater. Nothing causes nothing. EM at base is the same. But the arrangement of EM has different effects, and since nothing causes nothing, then the arrangement of EM has to exist.
"The arrangement of material does not exist. Arrangement is not an existent thing, rather, a relationship between existent things."
You're just shuffling words around. Now you're saying the relationship can change and the relationship does not exist. That's still a contradiction. Your materialism has big problems.
The avoid the contradiction you must conclude that the arrangement/relationship exists because the arrangement/relationship can change and (per Kevin) because the arrangement/relationship can produce a different effect.
You can either be logical and rational or you can hold onto your current contradictory view of eliminative materialism. Pick one.
BTW, in AT vernacular the arrangement/relationship is similar to the form.
bmiller,
"So arrangement does not exist, yet does exist. Contradiction #1"
You are wrong already. Arrangement simply does not exist.
Arrangement is not a substance or a material or a being that has ontological realization in the cosmos.
Just in case you have not noticed, English is a rather limited means of expressing concepts. Many concepts cannot be expressed at all using English. Words that are used commonly in one context can be applied very differently in another context.
*It depends what your definition of "is" is.*
I have not contradicted myself, you just don't understand the words.
Steve,
"SteveK said...
You agree that F moves X and Y. F is first and mutual causation is not a valid theory."
There can be a first.
There cannot be an UNMOVED first.
In this example X, Y, and F all move each other mutually.
SteveK,
"So what's going on?"
You are persistent in attempting to analyze concurrent mutuality using sequential hierarchical and unidirectional thinking.
Kevin,
"arrangement of EM has to exist."
Can you define "exist"?
It doesn't do much good to argue over what does and does not exist if you will not even define the word "exist".
Steve,
"BTW, in AT vernacular the arrangement/relationship is similar to the form."
Yes, of course, that is why I said "form" as AT vernacular for "arrangement".
So, for you and Kevin and bmiller, the fact that an arrangement changes means it must exist, correct?
So, on that view, an existent thing changes in the respect of its existence, correct?
thus, on your view, that which exists comes into being out of nothing, and that which exists passes out of being into nothing, correct?
I mean, for arrangement, if you have some pennies arranged X way now, then the pennies are arranged Y way later, X way stopped existing and Y way began to exist, on your view, correct?
Generation and corruption, right? The 3rd Way, right?
On the AT view, arrangement, form, exists, is generated, and is corrupted, comes into being, and ceases to be, begins to exist, and ceases to exist.
So, that which exists is that which begins to exist and that which ceases to exist, and that which changes in its existential aspect, correct?
Well, then, in that case, substance does not exist, material does not exist, stuff does not exist.
On your definition, that change of existence indicates existence, then substance or material or stuff or prime matter cannot exist because such stuff never changes in its existential aspect.
We never observe a different amount of stuff.
Stuff never changes in its being.
Stuff is always the same in its being.
E=m*c^2
No stuff gets in or out.
Call the stuff E, call the stuff m, there is always the same amount of stuff.
So, you have "proved" that arrangement exists and material does not exist.
So, for you and Kevin and bmiller, the fact that an arrangement changes means it must exist, correct?
Does nothing, as in "no thing", change? Do arrangements change?
So, on that view, an existent thing changes in the respect of its existence, correct?
thus, on your view, that which exists comes into being out of nothing, and that which exists passes out of being into nothing, correct?
Incorrect.
Can you define "exist"?
I've already answered this. Do you exist? Is there someone with the handle of "StardustyPsyche" typing messages on this site? Use that meaning of exist, along with the definition you provided earlier, which is " substance or a material or a being that has ontological realization in the cosmos", and see what happens.
So, some simple questions:
Can actions occur between things that don't exist, with first your definition and then the sense that I used it?
Can nothing cause something?
Can arrangement cause or be affected if arrangement does not exist, with first your definition and then the sense that I used it?
Does the arrangement of EM change the causes and effects of EM relative to another arrangement of EM?
"Can actions occur between things that don't exist, "
No
"Can nothing cause something?"
No
"Can arrangement cause"
No
"or be affected if arrangement does not exist,"
Our perception of arrangement is an abstraction. Our abstractions are affected by things that exist.
"Does the arrangement of EM change the causes and effects of EM relative to another arrangement of EM?"
No. EM interacts mutually in the present moment with other EM according to the properties of EM. Classically this occurs locally. Recent experiments with entanglement indicate we will have to adjust our notion of locality.
So, supposing these statements are all true:
God exists
Numbers exit
Form exists
Arrangements exist
Fundamental material exists
Objects exist
Thoughts exist
Triangles exist
Do they all exist in the same mode?
Do they all have the same sort of existence?
If we observe one mode of existence in one category of that which exists does than mean that all of which exists must therefore share that some mode of existence?
StardustyPsyche,
If we observe one mode of existence in one category of that which exists does than mean that all of which exists must therefore share that some mode of existence?
Are you now saying that there are different modes of existence?
Our perception of arrangement is an abstraction. Our abstractions are affected by things that exist.
It is not simply an abstraction to say that EM in the arrangement of plutonium explodes while EM in the arrangement of Mountain Dew leaves a puddle. The drastically different outcomes of two arrangements of EM subjected to the same conditions proves that the arrangement, and not the EM itself, is what makes a difference.
It's pretty simple to illustrate. Start with the EM, which is the same at base. Arrange the EM into plutonium and Mountain Dew, and then drink both. Why does the EM in the plutonium arrangement rot your entire body, while the EM in Mountain Dew only rots your teeth and kidneys? EM in those arrangements have such different results because of the properties of the arrangements, and for an arrangement to cause anything, it has to exist. You can call it a relationship between existing things if you want, but that's the exact same thing as what we are saying. The relationship is having an effect, which means the relationship exists. Things that don't exist cannot cause anything.
Do you exist?
Scientists can observe and study an abstraction?
bmiller
"Are you now saying that there are different modes of existence?"
I'm not but that could be one philosophical outlook that would use a very broad set of senses in which the word "exist" is considered to apply.
On June 20, 2024 7:37 AM I posed a hypothetical
So, supposing these statements are all true:
God exists
Numbers exit
Form exists
Arrangements exist
Fundamental material exists
Objects exist
Thoughts exist
Triangles exist
In my view only one of those statements is true, but on the notion of modes of existence, then maybe folks are using "exist" very broadly, I would say that is equivocating on the word "exist".
Kevin,
"Why does the EM in the plutonium arrangement rot your entire body, while the EM in Mountain Dew only rots your teeth and kidneys?"
Because EM always does the same sorts of things at it interacts mutually at a submicroscopic level. The EM of the plutonium or the body or the Mountain Dew or the teeth or the kidneys has no idea that it is a member of an arrangement we call any of those things. Each bit of EM just keeps mutually interacting with all the other bits of EM.
"The relationship is having an effect,"
No, the relationship is always the perceived aggregate of every bit of EM. Causality progresses at the fundamental level mutually between bits of EM.
"Do you exist?"
Depends on the definitions of "you" and "exist".
One admittedly awkward way to describe "me" or "I" is that a portion of the state of affairs in the cosmos is some finite amount of bits of EM arranged mewise, or Iwise.
The EM of that portion of the cosmos, like all EM in the cosmos, exists.
Then there is the famously "hard" problem of consciousness. Well, life would not be much fun if we already had all the answers. Asserting god or pantheism or pan psychism doesn't solve the "hard" problem, only makes it worse. How does this supposed consciousness stuff work? What is consciousness stuff made of? What are the mechanisms of consciousness stuff that give rise to first person self awareness and experience of qualia?
All the same questions apply to this purely speculative and undetectable consciousness stuff, so it is a less than worthless assertion.
SteveK,
"Scientists can observe and study an abstraction?"
An observation is an abstraction.
Physical actions involving physical material (scientists) is an abstraction? More incoherency.
Nobody has observed the necessary EM that you say exists "at base", at the fundamental level. You believe it's there, moving things around and keeping material forms/arrangements intact via the fundamental forces so they don't disintegrate - but all we have ever observed are the aggregates which are the material forms/arrangements. There's no evidence for the hidden EM that you speak of.
Because EM always does the same sorts of things at it interacts mutually at a submicroscopic level.
If your goal is to have a worldview that reduces reality far past the realm of usefulness or explanatory power, then you have been exceedingly successful.
So to be clear, the reason you provide as to why plutonium is lethal and Mountain Dew isn't, is because EM does the same thing in both cases? Do the same thing twice and get wildly different results? EM is very magical, it seems.
Or is there maybe a difference between plutonium and Mountain Dew? Has your worldview prevented you from even acknowledging that?
StardustyPsyche,
In my view only one of those statements is true, but on the notion of modes of existence, then maybe folks are using "exist" very broadly, I would say that is equivocating on the word "exist".
If so then this is a bald contradiction:
The arrangement of material does not exist.
Arrangement is not an existent thing, rather, a relationship between existent things.
A process is not an existent thing, rather, a time sequence of various arrangements of existent material.
Arrangement is non-existent, yet it is a feature of reality. Same with process.
The only thing that could save it from that would be for you to claim you were using those words in different senses like "arrangement does not exist as a physical entity, but it does exist as an essential form of a physical entity. That is the meaning you are telegraphing, but are not allowed to say.
Post a Comment