1. An idea ready for takeoff

Comment #256138 by blaine on September 28, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Re: TuftedPuffin

Good point. Really deflates the rhetoric when you realize the points attributed to memes don't apply to unsuccessful memes.

2. Trichoplax Genome Sequenced: 'Rosetta Stone' For Understanding Evolution

Comment #244694 by blaine on September 9, 2008 at 10:21 am

Re: 14. Comment #243502 by Angels On a Pin Head

Because you misunderstand what is written doesn't mean it's misleading. To restate Gunnar's point more succinctly IMHO, the article says:

"Trichoplax shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"...

Couldn't state it more correctly, and to restate it with more words would just leave more opportunities for misunderstanding. If he said "Trichoplax and humans share over 80 percent of their genes" or "humans share over 80 percent...", that would be misleading.

3. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237478 by blaine on August 26, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Re: 37. Comment #237391 by phasmagigas

...Christians should be better than non-Christians in many areas. Criminality, honesty, wealth, health. This is one brick in that argument

id be suprised if almost every person living on the streets in the USA didnt believe in god.

(Sorry for late reply. AFK for some hours).

Right. In both cases, it's not ad Hominem to point out observations which show that the Christian hypothesis fails: God is not especially favoring Christians with wealth or morality. I think it's an important point which most Christians don't appreciate.

4. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237384 by blaine on August 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Most of us here champion the Scientific method. Contrary to the fundie interpretation that Science just can't be applied if you can't witness events first-hand, indirect evidence is just as important.

You think what the necessary consequences are for a proposition. If the consequences don't exist, then the proposition is false. If there is an interactive God who listens (and answers) to prayers and favors His boot-lickers, and if He is so partial to humility and honesty, then it's reasonable to conclude that practicing Christians should be better than non-Christians in many areas. Criminality, honesty, wealth, health. This is one brick in that argument.

5. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208822 by blaine on July 11, 2008 at 9:31 am

How much forethought does it take to realize that a public plea to infuriate your enemy might make them want to strike back at you personally, and that you will have to defend your own written words?

Of course the Catholics will show PZ's article to Bruininks, where he will read PZ's obscenities and his violent fantasies about Donohue kicking the pope in the balls. Now PZ is in the position of begging his friends to write letters on his behalf, but to be "polite and rational", to defend his article which was neither.

I hope PZ learns that although he is very successful at the moment, he is not invlunerable. I doubt it though. Dawkins and PZ's pleas for help are written as if the other side is the only one guilty of "juvenile flaming". There is plenty of reason and justice to back up his right to criticize the Holy Roman Empire. He should be worrying about defending his own public writings which are unbecoming of a UM professor... especially when he is so ready to criticize violent and vulgar tendencies in his adversaries.

6. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163352 by blaine on April 18, 2008 at 8:26 am

I was disappointed by the screen saying something like "Stein is an ignorant fool". If the rest of this video has already made the point, then it detracts from the esthetics (besides being superfluous). If the video has not made the point with its hyperbole and parody, then it's a futile, counterproductive, retrograde, and desperate attempt to force the point where intelligence and good taste have failed.

Other than that screen, I loved the video.

7. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68416 by blaine on September 7, 2007 at 5:52 am

Re: Comment #68364 by Prufrock

We have no real disagreement. In my last post I did not explain my point precisely enough. Let me clarify.

#68111
"that if the Ipod author had implied that his arguments should be accepted BECAUSE his is an authority in the field, that would open him up to ad Hominem, because that would be a plank (proposition) of his argument."

I did not say that by this he would have committed ad Hominem. On the contrary, I intended to say that this would have opened him up to non-fallacious ad Hominem. But it is quite my fault to not say this more explicitly:

...would invite ad Hominem counter-arguments, and they would in this case not be fallacious or unfair, because Krusch would have made his authority a premiss of his argument.

I agree that if Krusch had made such an inference (that his arguments should be accepted because of who he is), he would be committing ad Verecundiam. My point was that if somebody commits ad Verecundiam, they open up that ad Verecundiam to appropriate ad Hominem counter-arguments.

All fields, including logic, are complex if you take them seriously. I'm surprised this typical and often used attempt to inappropriately influence an argument is not included in your course notes. We all appeal to authority sometimes without thinking. I guess the most appropriate appeal to authority for us is the one where we are told that God exists because the parson/vicar/priest/rabbi etc tells us so.

It seems that you are trying to convince me that these things are fallacies. I know all of the standard fallacies well, and I never denied that all of the uses you described are fallacious. Of course they cover ad Verecundiam in Intro to Logic courses (not necessarily with this name though). Exactly what I said was, I don't think there is such a traditional "named" fallacy for this. I follow that with an explanation explaining why what you explain is fallacious, but why it is just a case of ad Verecundiam. The only disagreement between us is whether there is a specific named fallacy for what you describe (more specific than ad Veredundiam). I say there is not. Simply do a web search or consult your own text or notes, type the name of the fallacy here, and you will have won this dispute.

8. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68144 by blaine on September 6, 2007 at 8:45 am

Re: Comment #68138 by Prufrock

I think there is an appeal to authority fallacy as well which, quite rightly, penalises someone who suggests that authorities can never be wrong, simply by dint of the fact that they are authorities on a particular subject.

I don't think there is such a traditional "named" fallacy for this. According to my courses and books on the subject, what you discuss is just a specific case of inappropriateness of the authority. The person is not such an authority that empirical evidence should be ignored. Others here are welcome to correct or embellish what I say. I know there's at least one Philosophy Phd that hangs out here (Frank).

9. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68140 by blaine on September 6, 2007 at 8:31 am

Prufrock:

I am sorry that you took offense to me saying

Logic is a complex field. This is a point of fact. Anybody who isn't too intellectually lazy to make the effort can verify this.

I have no reason to think that you are intellectually lazy, and your inquisitiveness very much proves the contrary. Believe it or not, I respect you. I was attempting to point out that the statement under question was wrong, and that all it takes is initiative to get straightened out upon this point. I accept your criticism that my delivery was poor.

Therefore wouldn't the author mentioned be guilty of appeal to authority and not ad hominem?

I guess you mean Pew, since I haven't criticised the iPod author. Pew appealed to an appropriate authorities (not a fallacy); but made arguments against the iPod author's authority when he claimed none, and that is ad Hominen.

Epeeist:

Exactly. To appeal to authority is not fallacious. Appeal to inappropriate authority, aka ad Verecundiam is. Ad Hominem is a fallacy when the ad Hominen evidence is irrelevant to what is being argued. Discriminating when ad Hominem is relevant is rather non-intuitive, and getting this right has been very important to the success of logic.

It's great that many people here aren't bored by logic.

10. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68111 by blaine on September 6, 2007 at 6:44 am

... I shoulda said...

that if the Ipod author had implied that his arguments should be accepted BECAUSE his is an authority in the field, that would open him up to ad Hominem, because that would be a plank (proposition) of his argument.

Logic is a complex field. This is a point of fact. Anybody who isn't too intellectually lazy to make the effort can verify this.

11. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68106 by blaine on September 6, 2007 at 6:23 am

Re: Comment #68071 by Jiten

The argument that evangelistic or apologistic authors are generally dishonest and repeat the same faults is an important one, and one where ad Hominem is appropriate. And it is perfectly sensible to give proportional weight to opinions of appropriate authorities in a field. It certainly makes sense to conclude from these factors that it isn't worth your time to read certain works. But these factors do not justify the conclusion that the points made in any specific unread work are wrong. Make your argument that precious time is too valuable to spend reading books like this because X, Y, and Z. But you make the fallacy of accident if you conclude "book X sucks" without having taken the time to read it. If you understandably don't have time to read it, then you are unqualified to argue that point-- wait for a kind soul like Beeachbum to report his findings.

I'll save Pewk some typing and say that I regret this post may sound pompous and obtuse to non-technical readers. I know that makes for a bad impression, but I'll risk it because that's the only efficient way to voice my points here. Just as in any complex field, it is a stupendous waste of time to ignore the progress made in the field by experts over hundreds of years. Logic is the field to use when discussing argumentation if you want to make real progress and avoid the well-understood problems.

I will most likely not be spending more time defending what I say here or in my previous posts. These concepts (like appropriate authority, validity, fallacies) are explained far better than I can explain them by experts in the field (Logicians) in any logic text book. If anybody really disagrees with my points here, you will spend your time more profitably by looking up what logic experts have to say on these matters rather than reinventing the field of logic in this thread.

12. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67706 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Re: Comment #67701 by pewkatchoo

I don't apologize for making an effort to influence the debate toward fairness and honesty. I'm also glad to see that several other people on this thread are interested in genuinely discussing the content of the podcast, instead of deficits of its author.

13. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67685 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 10:57 am

Re: Comment #67610 by pewkatchoo

Why has this person seen fit to produce this? This is an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary people who have bought and enjoyed The god Delusion. For someone to feel that they are qualified to provide a commentary on what is in any case a very lucid book is arrogance par extrordinaire. And what are the commentators' qualifications, er, none by all accounts. Barry Krusch is actually a rather ordinary individual.

About the worse example of poisoning the well I've ever seen from an Atheist. A commentator does not need qualifications to criticise. The stated point is to criticise somebody who they see as an authority or spokesperson for the opposition (us). If you think that the unaccredited should shut the hell up, then get back under the yoke of monarchy, the pope, etc., because until "unauthorized" free thinkers had the courage to challenge the acknowledged authorities, nobody of your religious persuasion could be heard.

Consider that there are many people of both religious and non-religious persuasion like me, who have self-educated themselves rigorously well beyond their college degrees, but can't get accreditations due to financial, familial, geographic, or other restrictions.

This, of course does not imply that the Guide under discussion is good-- only that your specific argument here undermines the real weapon against theism-- good logic. When you argue like this, you represent your fellow Atheist poorly. We are qualified to argue the real points of contention head on.

14. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67680 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 10:36 am

Grumble.

I disagree with most of my peers here who are throwing up about 10 variants of ad Hominem. There are situations where an ad Hominem is appropriate, but nobody here is saying anything to indicate they're appropriate in this context. Like everybody else here, I am nearly certain that this Guide has nothing intelligent to say, and is probably misleading and retrograde; but those findings should be based on the work (including the free samples provided), not upon whether the author is accredited, has spent enough money on distribution, or has a complete (or even attractive!) resume. All of these arguments can be used at least as effectively against excellent anti-theism arguments out on the Internet in various forms, and all of them are fallacious. Can we make an attempt to argue with good faith and logic, at least among ourselves?

BTW, I guess I seem like a troll or something, since I only raise my voice here when I disagree. But the fact is that my name is rarely seen because I usually agree with what is being said and have nothing useful to add.

15. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67678 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 10:26 am

Re: Comment #67492 by Beachbum

I was suffering from the dilemma of whether to "support" the pro-ignorance cause by paying $10 and hours of boredom for educational and political purposes. I am greatly indebted to you for bearing this burden. Please do report back!

16. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65444 by blaine on August 24, 2007 at 7:50 am

Re: cry4turtles

What a counter-productive and stupid thing to say. Your reasoning and reliance on anecdotal accident (using this in the technical logical fallacy sense) is just like the average anti-atheist argument.

17. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65263 by blaine on August 23, 2007 at 11:48 am

I don't understand why Nature is so accommodating to the religious forces so detrimental to the entire scientific endeavor. According to the stats I've seen, the more acclaimed a Scientist, the more likely she is to be an Atheist. The board of Nature must be comprised principally of acclaimed Scientists, yet their paper has a consistent tendency to favor and ingratiate the religious?

18. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65256 by blaine on August 23, 2007 at 11:10 am

Re: Comment #65078 by MAS2007 on August 22, 2007 at 8:56 pm

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- Carl Sagan

Cheers to Sagan for popularizing the phrase, but let's also remember David Hume, who put this tool into the skeptic's tool box (at a time when the risk to his person was much greater than in Sagan's time).

19. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65252 by blaine on August 23, 2007 at 10:48 am

I'm not wasting any more time commenting on the CNN site. I don't claim that my rejected comments are the best which could be written, but they are more articulate and reasoned than the average comment which they do post (this isn't much of a self-compliment!). Example of the type of comments which they reply to, and Amonpour's spineless apology for daring to compare Christians and Jews with Islamists:

Jack Wilson of Cannes, France: How can you even begin to compare Islamic extremists with Christians or Jews? How can you even put them in the same sentence?

Amanpour: We're not comparing. We're showing that each faith has their committed and fervent believers, and we're showing how each of those are active in the political sphere in today's world.

Great reasoning from this world renowned reporter. She examines the political ramifications of three objects in turn, and denies that this is "comparing". Is it possible to be more mealy-mouthed, and servile to political correctness?

20. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64279 by blaine on August 19, 2007 at 10:05 am

Finally had an hour to watch the video. I think he came off very well for acknowledging some counter-arguments (much easier to do with such a friendly audience). Helps offset his egoism (IMO, a necessary component of his charisma). Sure does like to go off on self-indulgent tangents, but they are always entertaining and concise.

For being such an enthusiastic contributor and promoter of Free Inquiry and Skeptical Enquirer), he surely is at odds with CSH (the umbrella org. for both of these periodicals) tactics about the value of allegience with a rationalist organization or "being counted". I think the longevity and financial and political success of religious organizations in the US alone proves the effectiveness of similar allegiences. I find it very hard to see how concerted efforts of hundreds of Atheistic organizations can result in neglible benefits for the popularization of Atheistic causes (including the sales of his book). Anybody here have insight or evidence either way?

21. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61036 by blaine on August 3, 2007 at 11:43 am

Your example "exchange" shows my point exactly. The direct point being discusseded at the moment is whether the person was in Milwaukee. The prosecutor provides evidence to prove that point. In the real exchange here, the direct point being replied to at the moment is whether the "default position" should be atheism or agnosticism, but Myers does not provide evidence bearing upon that point.

McGrath's mendacity (which he demonstrated by blathering about A, thus the quote) was much more relevant to the points Myers wanted to make than was the validity of A.

I guess that's right, considering Myers' style. I prefer more objective critiques in an attempt to learn something from the few valid points made by the adversary, than an emotional ad Hominem which uses omission to leave the false impression that every thing the person says is idiotic. A good example here of poisoning the well of debate.

22. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61022 by blaine on August 3, 2007 at 10:56 am

I don't doubt that, but it's unclear at best. He quotes his opponent making point A, and immediately follows it by arguing against an unstated implication of A, without giving any indication of whether he cedes with the main point (which led me to think he was challenging A). As you say, he never questions the legitimacy of McGrath's statement regarding "default positions"; yet he doesn't acknowledge it either-- is it pedantic of me to expect a critic to say whether he agrees or disagrees with a point after he quotes i?

23. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60994 by blaine on August 3, 2007 at 9:20 am

Re: Comment #60968 by Erik

You make a fine argument there. Unfortunately, Myers did not. To somebody who doesn't know Myers' unstated reasoning (which we are guessing about, since he did not clarify), the argument as given on this one point misses the point. This will be the impression of the average American who goes to one of these Blogs from a search engine.

24. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60953 by blaine on August 3, 2007 at 7:05 am

I think Myers misunderstands McGrath's point wrt the "default position". Myers argues as if McGrath says that the default position is the religious position, but McGrath is describing the starting position, not his theistic position. He says that the default position is the "obvious" agnostic position.

As for his claim that the default position is "not being sure" — he's being dishonest. His position and the religious position in general is one of certainty in their dogma... -Myers

No, Mcgrath didn't say (in the paragraphs under discussion) that his own opinion is "not being sure", he is saying that that is the default position.

I hope that even the excitable of us heathens can remain reasonable during a heated debate and try to evaluate the opposing arguments in the most favorable light, trying to filter out our interpretive biases to keep the argument as objective as possible. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with religious onlookers that the Atheist is "missing the point".


(I'm not opining whether the true starting position should be the Atheistic position or the Agnostic position. I'm just saying that this is the point which McGrath is arguing, and which point Myers apparently doesn't understand.)

25. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54992 by blaine on July 9, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Comment #54621 by blaine on July 8, 2007 at 7:35 am

> "If God promises to make our consciousness persist without the necessary physical support, then the new consciousness will lack these characteristics."

> I disagree. In this lifetime God gave us the ability to think and to do critical thinking. I see no reason why God would deprive us of this ability in the after life.

Why would God create a brain for thinking if it were entirely unnecessary for that purpose? Ridiculous. When most Christians see a bird flying, they think, "God in his wisdom gave birds wings so that they could fly." I guess you would say, "God could have made birds fly around without wings but created them because..." I can think of no way to complete the sentence that would make any sense.

Many liberal Christians, and C. S. Lewis agree with me on this point. These Christians think that God creates physical things for the obvious necessary purpose.

26. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54988 by blaine on July 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Re: Comment #54924 by darwin2 on July 9, 2007 at 10:41 am

"I remember Carl Sagan saying that the universe is unknowable and we should just leave it at that. I take it one step further and say that God the Supreme Designer and Creator is infinite and unknowable but we can appreciate God through His magnificent creations."

One step further? That addition is entirely contrary to Sagan's very honest tact of acknowledging ignorance instead of holding strong convictions of positive knowledge where there is no logical support for the alleged knowledge.

27. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54624 by blaine on July 8, 2007 at 7:52 am

> Comment #54555 by darwin2 on July 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm
> Re: Comment #54359 by blaine on July 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm
>
> "What most of us here are probably wondering is, how can anybody be satisfied by postulating such a huge, unexplained anomaly as darwin2's super-powerful God? If this huge and complex world causes so much stress to somebody by virtue of having no known cause, then how could an even more complex entity with admittedly unknown cause reduce said stress?"
>
> It satisfies me. It gives purpose to my life. It relieves stress in my life. I know who I am, why I am here and where I am going.
>
> "I've never heard any answer that was both honest and logical, besides one college chum who admitted that the extra level of inference lets their mortal brain push the disturbing anormality a little further from their consciousness (in the same way that we don't worry as much about distant starving babies or our own relatively distant death)."


Unless you just choose to believe something which is probably false because it makes you "feel good", please explain why "Infinite God" requires no known cause, but "Infinite universe(s)" require a known cause? (I say "known cause", because it could well be that our universe, or a parent universe, or the multi-verse, may have some unknown cause).

28. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54621 by blaine on July 8, 2007 at 7:35 am

Re: #54555 by darwin2 on July 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Thanks for the great question, Darwin2.

"Death comes sooner or later. There is no escape from it. I realize that atheists believe consciousness ceases at death. Many atheists have a scientific approach to life. Scientific people like to speculate on the unknown. One of the unknowns in life is whether or not intelligent life exists outside our planet. Many atheists have speculated on what this extraterrestrial intelligent life would look like if it actually exists. What happens after death is unknown. I wonder if atheists speculate on what consciousness would be like if consciousness indeed does survive after death."

Excellent subject, and one that I like discussing with Christians. I don't think that consciousness persists past death, because I know of absolutely no phenomenon which even tends to imply that that happens; and evolution, which accounts for individual egos/personalities, wouldn't encourage it directly (since it has no bearing on the persistence or duplication of genes). However, evolution doesn't necessarily discourage or eliminate phenoma neutral to gene survival). But, back to the point, if consiscuosness does persist past death, I side strongly with C.S.Lewis's speculation that personality and memory would be entirely absent, and motivations/desires would be a very different thing (if present at all).

I agree with Lewis's deductions from Christian theology and the nature of infinite, but also from a knowledge of neurology and psychology way beyond what was known in 1950. Blending the two, the critical point is that God would not have made physical brains to store memories, generate desires, and perpetuate a self image, if these goals didn't require a physical mechanism (and this assertion is proven beyond doubt by Scientific findings over the past 50 years). If God promises to make our consciousness persist without the necessary physical support, then the new consciousness will lack these characteristics.

(As an aside, most Fundamentalist Christians, who consider a reading of The Witch and the Wardrobe the intellectual achievement of their lives, don't realize that their icon for intellectual respectability disagrees with their literal interpretations of corporal resurrection, as written by Paul and others in the Bible).

Opposing opinions welcome from Theists and Non-theists.

29. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54359 by blaine on July 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm

What most of us here are probably wondering is, how can anybody be satisfied by postulating such a huge, unexplained anomaly as darwin2's super-powerful God? If this huge and complex world causes so much stress to somebody by virtue of having no known cause, then how could an even more complex entity with admittedly unknown cause reduce said stress?

I've never heard any answer that was both honest and logical, besides one college chum who admitted that the extra level of inference lets their mortal brain push the disturbing anormality a little further from their consciousness (in the same way that we don't worry as much about distant starving babies or our own relatively distant death).

30. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53593 by blaine on July 2, 2007 at 6:37 am

Without set time limits, it's impossible to describe to an ignorant audience the apparent dilemma that morality is valuable yet not absolute. If one can't explain this adequately, they will look like a moral relativist by just providing proof that morals are absolute. I have seen this happen at least 6 times in debates (usually WITH set time limits, but the debator didn't think it worth the time to show that he/she values morals). This definitely applies here, since Sharpton accuses Atheists of moral relativism in every debate that these two have.

The arm-chair debators will bitch about the real debator not arguing against absolute morality; but then would bitch more if the debator left the impression of moral relativism. Do you really think you would have debated better than Hitchens?

31. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53504 by blaine on July 1, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Comment #53436 by troyboy on July 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

The natural causes of the evolution of morals has been pretty well understood in general for the past 30 years (really difficult to not connect the dots after one reads Selfish Gene). The neurlogical and comparative (human vs. non-human animals) aspects have been studied rigorously in the past 10 years, including fascinating studies at Harvard and elsewhere. Here's a fairly recent audio article: http://secularcongregation.org/wvsc/resources/wvsc/radiolab042806_morality.mp3

32. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53388 by blaine on July 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

Hitchens is an excellent debater and is extremely quick on his feet. I think he'd be the first to admit that he just isn't a subject matter on the technical subjects. I have seen him (in videos) handle hostile audiences and hosts far better than any participant on this thread could. He is far better than Dawkins is "under pressure".

Keep in mind that Hitchens is a very successful writer and speaker-- I could be wrong, but I expect he has much more experience and skill as a speaker and debater than every reader of this post. With that in mind, consider the possibility that when you think, "I am so clever that I would have answered 'X'," it is very likely that Hitchens has rejected that alternative through his excellent ability to anticipate the effect on the audience. Do you have such a superior intellect that, sitting at your PC, you know the more effective debating tactic in every situation better than the proven, expert debater who you disparage?

Instead of comparing the debate at hand to a utopian debate where the theist cowers under each blow of mighty logic from the Atheist, rate it in perspective to other professional debates. Watch theism debates on Youtube, etc., and you'll see that Hitchens is as good a debater as the best of them. Technically, his vast literary knowledge and insight makes amends for his scientific limitations. (Since they didn't get into discussion of religious texts and such, his literary knowledge couldn't be used in this debate). Give Hitchens his due-- he presents an intelligent yet moral, no-BS facade to Atheism. Compare this to semi-expert debaters like Ron Barrier or Ellen Johnson, who screw up points like morality to the point where a neutral audience could conclude that Atheists are relativists.

33. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53306 by blaine on June 30, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Note Chris Matthews' cowardly parting shot that the wall of separation was to prevent a government-favored religion, as opposed to preventing government involvement with religion.

34. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49276 by blaine on June 11, 2007 at 9:50 am

Wow, this is really well written.

35. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47825 by blaine on June 5, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I'm posting here only so that participants and non-participants don't think that all of us Dawkins-style Atheists are of the appease-the-religious variety. I agree with Fanusi Khiyal and GoatBoy36 that it really takes a biased historical perspective to not see that appeasement does not work against fanatics; and that this tact has failed consistently and miserably with Islam specifically.

Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et. al. have written very eloquently about how diasterous a strategy it is to appease fanatics for reasons of diversity, benevolence, or anything else. I'm a history buff myself and nobody here has made any valid argument against Fanusi's historical interpretations. It's very easy to do what is easiest, "feels good", and gets you lots of religious friends now. It takes maturity to swallow the bitter medicine early to prevent catastrophic events in the future. It takes deliberate objectivity to see past the visceral, human, but often counter-productive feeling that any oppression is bad.

I know that the vocal participants here aren't interested, but for those who are, here's the classic incident exemplifying that it is counter-productive to appease a harmful fanatic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

36. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21288 by blaine on February 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Re: NJS

Well put.

37. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21280 by blaine on February 8, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Re: Linda

Unless I misunderstand something, Richard implies above that his interview has already been taped. They can't edit a 20 minute interview into 4 while it is being broadcast live.

38. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21270 by blaine on February 8, 2007 at 11:04 am

Re: 21268

Aw. I was psyched for the show this eve. :(

39. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21269 by blaine on February 8, 2007 at 10:57 am

Re: Lionel A's PS:

Frustrating, but it takes a special kind of pertinacity to not copy your text to your system clipboard after keying it all in for the 2nd time. :)

40. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21248 by blaine on February 8, 2007 at 8:29 am

Bush's big concession to environmentalism and US political independence is to cut US dependence upon oil by 20% within 10 years (I may not have the numbers exactly right... can't find the artilce). BFD! If he seriously wanted to significantly improve policitical independence or environmentalism, he could easily cut dependence by more than half. He could easily get a grass roots majority on board by using his proven strategy of leveraging patriotic fear. That route, however, would be less profitable for the American oil and automotive companies which butter his bread.

41. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21244 by blaine on February 8, 2007 at 7:59 am

I hated the link to this article on CNN's home page: "Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate". I sadly clicked to it, expecting another unfortunate article highlighting disagreements about evolution among scientists, which are always taken as evidence against evolution by those who happily misunderstand the scope and implications of the disputes.

I was pleasantly surprised by CNN's objective perspective, specifically using meaningful quotes from Leakey the younger, and giving a sensible voice the "last word".

I also very much like that the subject matter itself makes it clear to the un-brainwashed that Adoyo isn't pushing an alternative hypothesis or anything else which anybody could consider fair, but just wants to hide physical evidence which he can't account for.

I loved Leakey's quote, but I'm really grateful to Adoyo for cheering me up:

These sorts of silly views are killing our faith.

Cheer up, Atheists: this enemy admits that his side is losing.

42. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #20088 by blaine on January 31, 2007 at 10:07 am

Re: Feigentodd

Re: #1

Good point. Wittgenstein and some other ontologists have really insightful stuff to say about kinds of existence which we usually ignore. For example, if you imagine something, that imagined thing does exist in some way. Abstract ideas like "triangleness" also exist in a real way.

Re: #2 and #3

I think that consciousness persists (don't know how it started though :( ) because it is an efficient way to make dynamic decisions which excel at perpetuating "my" genes. (I can't prove that it is more efficient or successful at this than non-conscious weighted decision algorithms, though).

"My" consciousness is centered around my body because consciousness survives only to the extent that it promotes the genes of the body containing genes for that body's consciousness mechanisms.

The working fuel for consciousness is input sensory data, which can be stored as memories, etc. This working fuel of consciousness X is obviously limited to sensory inputs from the body containing consciousness X. I.e., Blaine's consciousness (made possible by consciousness mechanisms coded in Blaine's genes) can only work with sensory data available to Blaine's brain. WRT visual data, over a lifetime, our brains perceive many, many, many times more perceptions than our brains has a capacity to remember: this is a neuronal limitation, not a psychological limitation.

43. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #20086 by blaine on January 31, 2007 at 9:47 am

Re: phil rimmer

I'm not at all convinced that every survival benefit that you have touched upon could not be achieved by quantitative improvements of decision/weighting algorithsms, which are already accounted for by evolution. If it's reeeealy beneficial to be able to give lots of value to impressing the opposite gender by cultural achievements, neurons can accommodate that with dynamic weighting strategies alone. Other dynamic weighting strategies result in motives to achieve this "impression" goal by using art, competition, etc.

I guess I should have spelled out why I keep insisting on a "direct" link between memes and consciousness. It's because the thing to be explained is the creation of consciousness. If memes only indirectly create consciousness, then you haven't simplified the creation of consciousness at all. The problem is, we know of absolutely no mechanism which can create consciousness, and simply saying that memes initiate the creation indirectly by some totally unknown means is analogous to saying that God explains the creation of the universe. I have no idea how a God would go about creating a universe, but saying that God is a mediate cause is preferable to me than saying, "I don't know how the universe was created".

I do like your ideas that memes and thoughts could be a mediate cause, and I very much appreciate your bringing to my attention many new inferences from this hypothesis. But for me, this sheds no light on how creationism could be created.

A general limitation of evolution is that it cannot create new types of things which would be useful to evolution. I think this is deadly to the idea that evolution in any way is responsible for the original creation of the first consciousness. Example: Wings would have been really useful for birds because birds could thereby escape from predators better-- therefore wings evolved. The "components" of wings have to coincidently be at a state where random mutations statistically result in the components assembling minimally useful wings. This is a major challenge for protobiogenesis-- to account for how the first replicating genes came about. If ages ago there was nothing in the world anything like consciousness, then memes, thoughts, genes, etc. could not have simply fabricated consciousness because it would be useful.

44. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19861 by blaine on January 30, 2007 at 10:27 am

Re phil rimmer

Re:

I am a little flummoxed that you think software (memes) might not create something substantial. In fact I've got some neat software that helps me write more software. Software is powerful. Google has affected me more, by organising my life around its capabilities, than most people have. Software isn't spooky.

Good analogy. Software can create more software, and we know about many mechanisms to explain cause-and-effects to indirectly effect other things. It's just wishful thinking to propose that memes directly create some other thing, consciousness, without any evidence or even theory of a mechanism which would allow memes to create consciousness. From all the proof you have given, memes could just as easily directly create cars or elephants.

Re: Zombie substitution. Your argument would hold some weight if I said that there is no difference at all between my non-conscious subject vs. your conscious subject. The claim I made, however, is that your subject has no survival benefit over mine. I acknowledge that there is a difference between consciousness and unconsciousness-- that's the triviality which you have proven. I wouldn't argue if I thought consciousness was nothing. I am saying that neurology accounts for the body-controlling and decision-making aspects of the brain, i.e., the only survival-impactiving aspects of the human mind, without any need for consciousness.

Specifically, (1) there is no reason to think that anything is a cause for bodily control other than neurons sending outgoing chemical/electrical signals. No consciousness necessary. Earthworms do this all the time. (2) There is no reason to think that anything is involved with decision-making other than weighted summation calculations performed by neurons. #2 just takes some concentrated thought about the subject. What do you base decisions on... you base them on your personal values, rules, past experiences, hard-coded instincts and desires, etc. Every input to the "deciding" neurons is ultimately physical. I hope that you can think through the ultimate physical sources of the inputs yourself (by just thinking about what you base decisions upon), but I can spell that out too if necessary. To propose that consciousness is somehow necessary when there is nothing to account for and the hypothesis is entirely devoid of evidence is very analogous to the long-lived hypothesis of ether.

45. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19701 by blaine on January 29, 2007 at 10:46 am

Re: MacGruder

I disagree strongly. This interview will obviously have no positive impact on thoroughly convinced Christians... but close to nothing will. I think it very well could have a positive impact on thoughtful Christians with an open mind, and people right now seriously considering the proposals appearing in mainstream media thanks to RD, Dennett, Harris, and others. Somebody with an open mind will see that Flemming is calm and reasonable, and Kasich never considers any point made by Flemming, and blindly believes that Christianity is the unmitigated pinnacle of virtue and goodness.

46. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19549 by blaine on January 28, 2007 at 7:48 am

Re: phil rimmer

I don't buy the idea that memes are directly responsible for consciousness. Memes are just thoughts. To say that thoughts somehow created consciousness is just as magical as to say that thoughts somehow created trees. There is no plausible causal link. Quite religious.

I understand what you are saying about the motivational effect of consciousness, but I challenge you to explain why such a motivational effect would be more powerful than than a non-conscious motivation of the same quantity.

I.e., you are saying that this self-drive is so important because it makes me really ingenious and motivated about surviving. I challenge you to think up any situation where this conscious self-drive is clearly more beneficial than non-consciousness. After you have done that, I replace your conscious subject with a non-conscious subject who will run the same exact brain algorithms, motivational weightings, etc., but without consciousness. My subject will survive just as well as your conscious subject.

47. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19546 by blaine on January 28, 2007 at 7:13 am

Re: seals

When I was a teenager and looked into it, it was not very uncommon for people to think that only humans had consciousness, and all other animals, even dogs and chimps, act by instinct and algorithms without any real consciousness. I think all but the most retrograde thinkders will now put it somewhere between earthworms and cats.

It seems likely that it won't be long until our form of consciousness can be detected by a specific pattern of brain activity (actually seeing the neurons in different specific areas being triggered in a certain sequence to sample their output, then higher-level neurons choosing between the candidates). This can be seen now, but only when the question under consideration is extremely well defined. So, if research like this is expanded and generalized, a physician could look at a scan and tell if the patient is conscious or not.

The problem with generalizing this to animals is that the brain patterns are different. As an example, there is a specific area of the human brain that seems to choose between emotional responses and rational responses, and this area varies in activity from person to person, but most animals don't even have it.

48. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19544 by blaine on January 28, 2007 at 6:55 am

13%... said they believe in psychics.
Women are almost twice as likely as men to believe psychics can foresee the future, 18% vs 8%.

Since the proportion of females in the American population is only slightly higher than the proportions of males, it sure looks like the overall total (average) of people who believe psychics can foresee the future is 13%. Either these results say that less than 1% of people "believe in psychics" but that psychics can't see the future; the test didn't accurately differentiate the cases (which the "foresee the future" label implies they did); or the results are not being reported accurately. I think there must be a lot of people who think that Browne and people like her can see the dead, and the past, but not the future.

I didn't think Lancaster made his point very well. If he has all of this evidence, why must he resort to talking about "evil"? Also, as shown in the video, Browne doesn't claim a 100% success rate. He should have made the point that her success rate is worse than police work (or at least that her success rate is "very bad"), not just point out a couple mistakes over decades of work. He could make the same argument against police (incl. FBI, etc.), since they sometimes they screw up cases , accuse innocent parents of murder, etc., but that doesn't mean police aren't the most effective means possible to apprehend murderers.

Randi was great. My only complaint is about his lame reply about Browne's billing rate, that it is her opinion against his. I personally believe that Randi is much more honest than Browne, so I believe him. But it is not her opinion that is in doubt, it is her honesty. As shown a few sentences later, he has plenty of evidence about her billing rate, so he should have said that he has plenty of evidence to show that they are lying.

49. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19489 by blaine on January 27, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Re: phiwilli

I apologize for the butchering of my argument. Plus, the original conclusion got lost among the replies.

You said:

I note that you assert, but do not present an argument for, the idea that 'beliefs based on science should be trusted more.'

That is the what I was arguing to defend. You have agreed with my premisses:

• Methods of logic are to be trusted.
  
  
• General empirical assumption.
  
  
• It's counter-productive to entertain trickery/illusions without some justification other than just conceiving of it.
  

Since it would require trickery or illusions to make us totally misunderstand past and future, the premisses above justify our trust in hypotheses which we have repeatedly experienced (directly or indirectly) to correctly predict the future. As I stated it in originally:

Correctly predicting a very improbably future event is an objective means to judge an objective truth.

QED, beliefs based on science should be trusted, even though science tells us that some of our "feelings" are misleading/illusionary. I think this argument works at least as well for a deterministic world as for a non-deterministic world.

I deny your premiss "ALL our consciousness... derives from goings-on in our neurophysiology of which we are unaware". There is a lot about neurophysiology that we are aware of, and we have no reason to doubt what science shows up about typical physical sensory perception. One would have to believe in trickery, etc., to deny that nerves carry data from ocular light detectors into the brain, for example, or that brain cells communicate with one another across synapses.

I see nothing in anything that you have written (whether via Popper or not) to justify the assertion that rationality and complete determinism are antithetical. As far as I know, what I wrote above justifies rationality in a deterministic world.

-------------------------------

I won't comment on Popper's theories because I only know them through citations. I will order "Objective Knowledge" from Amazon right after I submit this post, if it's still available.

-------------------------------

You say:

Then there's the matter of complete determinism (you say, "all thought is deterministic down to the subatomic level"). I'm far from convinced of that.

Non-deterministic events are quintessentially random. Not random in the sense that it is beyond our ability to predict or determine the cause, but that the outcome is ultimately inscrutable ahead of time, and the cause is inscrutable after-the-fact. The only such events known in the universe occur at the sub-atomic scale. Point to any event at all anywhere in the brain, and entire process is deterministic.

On a neuron scale, we know that decision neurons fire due to "calculations" physically performed by electrical and chemical sums exceeding thresholds. The ONLY way to change the outcome is to change one of those inputs.

On a thought scale, consciousness and ego only matter with certain types of decisions. For these decisions, we DO NOT VALUE RANDOM DECISIONS. We value only decisions based on rules which we approve of. These "rules" are also decisions which we do not value unless they were based on rules which we approve of. When you go to the end of the recurse, you end up with physical input (genes or physical experiences). I.e. the input to out thought system are entirely RANDOM (which comes only from the subatomic scope) or DETERMINISTIC.

------------------------------

Re. ability of neuroscience can detect true beliefs in a brain.

I think you'll realize that the definition of science would have to change if it could do that. Science is inductive. There is no direct connection between science and reality, like there is between math and reality.

But, I have no idea why anything should hinge upon such a fantastic ability. The brain evolved as a contolling mechanism and decision maker. That is what science tells us, whether the world is deterministic or not. Brain designs survive evolution when it controls our bodies well and makes good survival and reproduction decisions. If you think brains should have evolved some way to absolutely distinguish truth, you'll have to justify that.

50. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #19472 by blaine on January 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm

This thread is about to drop off the richarddawkins.net/home page. I hope my fellow correspondents return :) .

Re: phil rimmer

I really like your hypothesis about our preoccupation with maintaining our "self models". Think about the implications of indignation. How effortlessly it arises. How ubiquitous it is in any human over age 2. How it is often based upon biased perspectives, yet we give it (nearly) absolute control over our attitudes. As an extreme example, think about indignation against fate. Like when my daughter gets frustrated that she just can't learn a piano piece. She gets totally frustrated and angry, yet there is no object-- she is only angry that faith is being unfair to her "self".

I have an objection to your hypothesis about what makes consciousness feel like consciousness. Perhaps you've already thought through something to account for this (please enlighten me if so).

You say that consciousness automatically comes about when certain complex, self-reflexive examinations take place... perhaps a very specific combination of processing. My objection is, the algorithms may be incredibly complex, and recursive to some degree, but they are neither infinitely complex, nor infinitely recursive (a simple way to restate this last is that the recursion has some terminal condition, like when a max time is reached or a lower potential-benefit-threshold has been reached).

Seeing that your "conditions" of consciousness are all finite mental actions, none of which requires consciousness by itself, why could there not be an animal or mechanical mind which could run the same exact algorithms without the feeling of consciousness? I.e.

A + B + C... -> consciousness -> resultant thought

vs.

A + B + C... -> resultant thought

I can think of no situation where the first strategy would be better in terms of efficiency, survivial, or anything else.


To restate my objection from an evolutionary perspective... The only evolutionary benefit of a better brain (with or without consciousness) would be to make better decisions (with respect to survivial or reproduction). I can conceive of no way that "a consciousness-based decision" could improve upon a complex mathematically weighted decision. No matter what unique input you propose as a component of consciousness, that same input can be used as the basis for a weighted mathematical equation.


Perhaps the answer lies in something like the following. Some basis of thinking algorithms and decision weighting schemes are genetic, either static or as a starting point for experiential learning. These genetically predetermined weights will probably vary due to averaging of sexual recombinations + mutations + genetic viruses. Whereas these variations in general would provide great input for evolutionary selection to work and improve upon, the favorable weight to put on survival of yourself (and closely-related bodies which carry some of the same genes) must be extremely high. I.e., if I am deciding whether it is more important for me to scratch a misquito bite, or to run from a tiger, self-survival should always trump (i.e. have extremely favorable decision weight). Maybe the conscious thought of an ultimately valuable ego transcending physicality effectively gives an ultimately high decision weighting to our "self" without the opportunity of mutations, etc. lowering the weight. Perhaps "self love" is the essential quality of consciousness? Given two races of humans, one with a traditional genetically coded weight for body-survival, and another with genes for a self-love facility, in the long run the latter would more often make decisions favorable to survival/reproduction.

(I just thought of this now, so don't hesitate to poke holes!)