501. Fleabytes

Comment #140038 by Quine on March 7, 2008 at 12:04 am

Steve:

I owe MPhil an awful lot as well, for teaching me a huge amount, including the right words for what I don't seem to accept :)

Just hang in there and keep thinking. If you push too hard and fast you can burn out on concepts you have not given a chance. MPhil seems to be serving you well.

502. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139748 by Quine on March 6, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I am surprised Prof. Dawkins' remarks about the "victimless crime" bumper sticker were not read out in this 'debate.'

503. Fleabytes

Comment #139698 by Quine on March 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Tolerance compared to what? I suspect Atheists in Saudi Arabia would be jumping for joy if they could move up the scale from beheading to tolerance (same for homosexuals in Iran). Of course, then they would still get in trouble for the "jumping for joy" part.

504. Fleabytes

Comment #139377 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Comment #139346 by Steve Zara

Well, I am still stuck with the issue that it feels like something to have those processes going on.

I blame it on evolution. Thomas Metzinger asks us which is evolution going to select: Protohuman1, "There is an iconic representation of a wolf associated with this point in my visual cortex" or Protohuman2, "There's a wolf."

505. Fleabytes

Comment #139275 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm

The bogus thing about Mary that has always bothered me is the idea that someone who was raised from before birth in a world without color, would develop the same neurostructures to experience color as someone from the 'normal' world. This is assumed in the thought experiment at the point when Mary, supposedly, gets to directly experience color vision. A good philosophical lawyer would jump up and object: "Assumes facts not in evidence" (oops, there's that 'evidence' thingy again).

506. Fleabytes

Comment #139185 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 9:07 am

Hi Steve,

At what point in your personal development from a single cell do you think there became something like it to experience the color red?

507. Fleabytes

Comment #138913 by Quine on March 5, 2008 at 12:16 am

Steve, does it seem to you that other people could be 'just' the result of the actions of their neurons?

508. Fleabytes

Comment #138884 by Quine on March 4, 2008 at 11:23 pm

But will this take us any further to explaining what the sensation of red is like?

Steve, you are asking for exactly what the field is working on: a third person description/explanation of first person subjectivity. There are tons of papers out there, and it just gets more interesting as more and more of the neurobiology of the brain becomes known.

509. Fleabytes

Comment #138872 by Quine on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Steve, you might enjoy reading through the
materialism thread from the RD Forum where we had some fun on this last year. There are a few other 'consciousness' threads in that philosophy section as well. These days, it seems all roads in philosophy lead to consciousness.

510. Fleabytes

Comment #138842 by Quine on March 4, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Comment #138631 by clearthinker

Quine (2510)

Philosophers stopped debating theologians well over a hundred years ag

Really? And your evidence for this is? Surely this is not just something you have made up off the top of your head? I read a great deal of philosophy - much of it is being done by theists - and most philosophy still discusses theology. But why should truth get in the way of prejudice?

Well, David, I am going to have to give you points on this one. I am not happy about it, one little bit, but when you are on the rational side facts are facts no matter how you don't like it.
My statement was so general that it falls on a single counterexample; I observe that, a year ago, Dan Dennett, unquestionably a Professor of Philosophy, did debate, Alister McGrath, unquestionably a Professor of Historical Theology. Thus, we can conclude that my statement is not true.

What I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote, were the kinds of debates that were focus of philosophy in the 18th and 19th centuries. At that time, it had become possible to get up and question religion without (usually) being burnt at the stake, like Bruno or excommunicated from your community like Spinoza (although you will still get beheaded by the Saudis, today). New ideas came in that could wash away old theological arguments from ontology to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and theologians had to drop much of the religion as it comes from the preachers, and (IMHO) wander off into their own esoteric closet. Now, both sides are very familiar with the other's arguments, and (again IMHO) nothing much happens (if you know a debate moment where something big did happen, please let me know).

Anyway, thank you for catching me being sloppy, and for the trip to the woodshed. It will, actually, be useful for me to trot this out when someone gets on my case for being overly pedantic.

-Q

"Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian." - Denis Diderot

511. Fleabytes

Comment #138553 by Quine on March 4, 2008 at 2:01 pm

If one were to get past the "Who created The Creator?" question (which I don't, because I see it as THE dead stop question), next you have to ask if your creator deity(s) survived the event? It/they could be like many species in biology who have single reproductive cycles. Perhaps the Universe is made out of what was previously it/them. The simplest form (base line) of Deism has no existing deity(s).

So, if you want to be a Deist who believes in one or more existing deities, you have to ask yourself what is the difference between that position and the non existing position, if the deity(s) have no interaction or influence? I hold that this is a distinction that does not make a difference, so you get popped back to the base line, and then the question of who created this thing that doesn't make a difference makes even less of a difference.

512. Fleabytes

Comment #138519 by Quine on March 4, 2008 at 1:19 pm

What Steve just said. Bonzai hit the list impressively well.

513. Fleabytes

Comment #138039 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Dear Paula,

Suggestion for your upcoming book title:

Unapoligetic: why religious apologists are paddling a sinking canoe

514. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138028 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm

... there will be response books, and lots of them.

Fine. We will feed them to our rottweiler. She is just getting up to speed, and once she gets a good agent, will be set for the foreseeable future.

515. Fleabytes

Comment #138003 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm

No doubt Erik the fish was swimming in the meme stew behind that last post.

A most excellent application of the meme, Dr.; I seem to recall that the epithet "loony" was associated to the wielder of the crayon.

516. Fleabytes

Comment #137963 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Reason: You made this using a crayon.

"This isn't a cat license; this is dog license, with the word "dog" scratched out and "cat" written in in crayon."

517. Fleabytes

Comment #137862 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm

kaiserkriss, Sounds like straight-up theology to me. Also remember that both Hitler and Stalin supported this round earth 'theory' in their plans for 'global' domination.

518. Fleabytes

Comment #137721 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 11:56 am

Steve, I do agree with your observation; my point is that the debate format goes against the rationalists because it, supposedly, excludes the introduction of irrational arguments, and yet, that is exactly what the whole theist side is going to be. I think we get our best mileage in print, presentation, and interview (backed up by satire, of course).

519. Fleabytes

Comment #137700 by Quine on March 3, 2008 at 11:13 am

It is interesting to contrast the public 'debates' over religion we saw last year with the political events we see today. When political candidates get up and do this they are using the same kind of language and tricks on each other, and understand the way it works. The public, more or less, does also and uses this knowledge for at least some of the evaluation.

However, when the subject is religion, something else is happening. The rationalist side gets up and starts talking about reasonable conclusions drawn from verifiable evidence, and then the religious side gets up and makes faithiness noises while radiating a glow of beatific wholesomeness. These ships are so far off the same latitude that they do not even see each other as they pass in the night. The public splits into the small fraction who are practiced at logical thought and the, much larger, portion who (as if listening to pop songs in dead languages) like the musical sound of the faithiness noises.

520. Fleabytes

Comment #137185 by Quine on March 2, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Here is a big "THANK YOU" going out from me to all my pre-sentient ancestors, who weren't smart enough to realize their lives were pointless. Couldn'ta done it without you!!!

[P.S. That goes for everything/one they ate as well.]

521. Fleabytes

Comment #137082 by Quine on March 2, 2008 at 10:26 am

Sorry, but that last part seemed like mockery.

Didn't sound like mockery to me, else I or someone from the Zombie Anti-Defamation League would have objected. It is not so easy going along without an inner life, even when the illusion of having one is so strong and readily available.

522. Fleabytes

Comment #136881 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm

In the general case, eliminative materialism is about taking out something it looked like we needed in an explanation, when that thing is not actually needed. As an example, before Newton it was suggested that the planets went around the sun in their orbits because angels were assigned the duty of pushing them around. Also, many forms of mental illness were attributed to the action of evil spirits taking up residence in someone's head. Both of these causes are no longer felt to be needed.

It has been going on for a long time, but has not been called this until recently when it is mostly (but not exclusively) used to refer to the idea that mental states aren't any more real than those evil spirits, even though people usually report experiencing them. (The notion that you are not really having the mental states that you experience having is, by its very nature, massively counterintuitive, so I can't help you on that part.)

[Edit: There is a great moment in the movie TRON when Flynn gets embodied as computer code, and looks around and says, "This isn't happening, it just thinks it's happening."]

523. Fleabytes

Comment #136729 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Sorry, mikejswalker, but in less than 10 posts the folks watching the debate will say "that's not my God they are talking about" because their idea of a deity would not, logically, withstand MPhil's first post.

524. Fleabytes

Comment #136705 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Brian, do you count self delusion as lies?

Part of basic human nature, when faced with the negation of a treasured belief, is to add complexity and obfuscation until it is no longer clear why it is bogus, even to you (and thus, not lost). Whereas, scientists have to fight against this all the time to make valid progress, theologians use it to stay in business. (Or as Dennett says "take in each other's wash.")

525. Fleabytes

Comment #136692 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Yes, there are going to be exchanges, but generally not on these basic ontological points (theology from so called first principals) which have been put to bed or are (drum roll here) waiting for evidence.

As for "taking them on," sure, from time to time, you just can no longer suffer fools gladly, and have to let them have it. If you know of any theological tract of the last half of the 20th century that had any hope of standing on logical legs, I would like to hear about it.

526. Fleabytes

Comment #136680 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Thanks MPhil. Philosophers stopped debating theologians well over a hundred years ago because it is like asking mathematicians to debate some cult members who "just know" 2 plus 2 = 5. But, somehow, the public seems to buy the idea that unless we get up every day and tell them that 2 plus 2 = 4, we must really know it doesn't and are hiding that fact from them.

527. Fleabytes

Comment #136656 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I am going to have to hold myself out of this one, as I have been criticized so often for dismissing Buffyology without having studied it.

528. Fleabytes

Comment #136555 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Incidentally, with regards to charity in general I notice that there are two types of people.

I am not the type of person to divide the world into two types of people; I leave that to the other type.

529. Fleabytes

Comment #136495 by Quine on March 1, 2008 at 10:35 am

clearthinker

I am only interested in Jesus Christ - to coin a phrase - he is my magnificent obcession.

Were you actually coining here, or just referencing Lloyd C. Douglas?

530. Fleabytes

Comment #136214 by Quine on February 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm

I am beginning to get annoyed at this site, as it is using up so much of my credit cards on Amazon.

Good idea to go get a couple of new bookshelves now so you will not have to try to put them in after the place is stacked up. I am enjoying the relatively new one from Dennett, Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness in which he updates many of the key arguments of the last ten years.

531. Fleabytes

Comment #136026 by Quine on February 29, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I have noticed that people seem to be drawn to a deity that can be made the designated smiter of those you were not able to get even with in this life. A difficult step for many believers to "get over" is that those who got a much better deal in life (or took 'unfair' advantage of you), are not, somehow, going to have to pay for it after death.

532. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #135308 by Quine on February 28, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Section 9 has you after the Puppetmaster?

Perhaps Aramaki assigned him to 'dive' the RD site.

533. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135127 by Quine on February 28, 2008 at 2:55 pm

"I ordered your product to help treat a mild cold that I was experiencing and that evening I began to feel much better. By the time your product arrived I was nearly fully cured. I cannot recommend this enough, thank you FairDeal Homeopathy."

Thank you, ianmkz

534. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134509 by Quine on February 27, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I always want to ask these guys how many lives would have been saved if only Stalin had been a worshiper of Baal instead of being an Atheist?

535. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133210 by Quine on February 25, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Thanks pkruger, I figured they would not hold still for another one from me.

536. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133101 by Quine on February 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm

My question is, do you think the gospel writers, Matthew and Luke, were lying -- intentionally trying to deceive people?

No. They were writing down what was an oral tradition by that time, an oral tradition that had already mutated past historical objectivity.

I suggest reading Bart D. Ehrman's excellent textbook on the history of the New Testament.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195322592

For the "natural law" issues, start by reading Matt Ridley:
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Virtue-Instincts-Evolution-Cooperation/dp/0140264450
It's older, but an easy start. You can read the recent stuff after that.

Or, you can just wait for Steve to Socratic Method you into a helpless corner.

537. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #132521 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Congrats V&Y!!!!

Best wishes for happiness to you both. Good work, Josh.

-Q

538. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132467 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Okay, I will just pick one of so many. His foundational quote is:

"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."

As counterexamples to this we have many testimonials from former believers who heard evidence (from Prof. Dawkins and others) that they considered flatly wrong, but subsequently thought it over and had the scales fall from their eyes. There is a wonderful part in the PBS Evolution series where students from a Christian College are taken out to a dig where they can see the fossils coming out of the ground. The expression on the face of one of the students when she realizes that the paleontology grad students (digging this big hole around her with paint brushes) are neither devils nor liars, is priceless.

Edit: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ (see last part titled: "Religion")

539. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132440 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 6:48 pm

A giant pile of nits; if I started picking these off, when would I ever stop?

540. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132284 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Quine,

Stop the pedantic nitpicking, would you?

It's a dirty job; but somebody has to do it.

--this may actually be a health hazard because it may lead to beating in some circles

Good thing I am, also, a martial arts instructor.

541. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132271 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

However, I feel that the main role for these scenarios of the early universe is to stimulate our thinking. I don't necessarily believe any of them. The most important thing is that the only intellectually honest way to study such questions of cosmology is to make the most precise model you can. I think of the whole thing as a giant intellectual exercise, a stimulating exercise, to make us better appreciate the universe.

I am, actually, rather glad to hear this part. One of the problems I have with all the speculation about the very early Universe is that it relies (necessarily) on the assumption that energy/matter and space/time interacted then as we see now (or can see near then by looking far away). In and of itself, that is not too much of a stretch, except that at very close to time zero we are out of fossil picture (background microwave) and just have to keep extrapolating physical laws that have not been tested at the energy levels or space/time curvature the math goes up to. Physicists recognize that they have a problem when the values go to infinity, but really don't know at what point they are in trouble on the approach.

This kind of thing has happened throughout the history of science. A good example is the problem with the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury, which showed that Newton's gravity law (which worked so very well everywhere else) was not always true. It turned out that close to the sun the curvature of space/time was just enough to cause a difference that made a difference, requiring General Relativity. We have no way to know if there isn't another force in Nature that is many orders of magnitude weaker than gravity (we would not see it on our scale) that did interact when distances were very small and space/time curvature was very large. I am not presuming to propose any theory, I just want to remind everyone that models extrapolated into situations beyond conditions of experimental testing are not necessarily valid sources of prediction. I look forward to data from future attempts to increase the resolution of the picture of the fossil background microwave asymmetry, and of course, to gravitational wave telescopes.

542. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132234 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm

It's basically the only way you can make the equations consistent and avoid infinity.

Again, "only way" means "only way we have thought of so far." This is not in the same class of statement about what cannot be done as is something like the impossibility of squaring the circle. If he really thinks so, let's see the math steps of the proof.

543. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132222 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 1:39 pm

So if we could measure the waves, we could see which theory is right.

No. With enough data you might be able to show that one or both are wrong. When he says "right" in this context, he (hopefully) means "is not inconsistent with what we are able to measure." That is not the same as what the public hears in "right" which leads to all kinds of conclusions from false analogy.

544. Fleabytes

Comment #130521 by Quine on February 20, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Stuff about AI and qualia, and also about Folk Psychology and Eliminative Materialism.

... and these are a few of my favorite things.

The quest for a third person description of first person subjectivity, slowly, grinds along.

545. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130327 by Quine on February 20, 2008 at 10:37 am

In line with the remarks by salon_1928 above, I also encourage people to read Ehrman's textbook on the NT. This was my first authoritative guide to where these writings came from, and with it I was able to come to a much clearer understanding of the origins of Christianity. Unfortunately, I am generally unable to get Christians to do the same.

546. Fleabytes

Comment #129931 by Quine on February 19, 2008 at 7:19 pm

If epsilon were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.

A false premise implies any conclusion.

Not relevant.

Always relevant. It is the line that divides what can come from evidence (through a falsifiable hypothesis) from what must be taken on faith.

If it is not about a falsifiable hypothesis, it is not about physics. Physical models are not necessarily valid outside of the experimentally determined parameters. Changing the value of an experimentally determined parameter is outside that parameter (the map is not the territory), and puts the argument back over the line onto the faith side.

IMHO the "fine tuning" argument is a basic epistemological fallacy disguised as a physics problem. Even very well educated people will fall for this kind of misdirection.

547. Fleabytes

Comment #129874 by Quine on February 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm

If epsilon were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.

A false premise implies any conclusion.

548. Fleabytes

Comment #129842 by Quine on February 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm

What became clear to me was that church services put words into their congregations' mouths all the time, and that congregations are lulled into not even noticing the fact.

One of the most insidious aspects of faith is the faith that if you recite the words long enough, you will get the faith.

Very well done, Paula.

549. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129261 by Quine on February 18, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Very sad.

550. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128974 by Quine on February 18, 2008 at 11:47 am

Keep in mind that Turing's goal was to make a test that could establish the ability to think, without having to define "thought." As such, it is a one sided test, at best (passing the test may establish thought, but failing the test says nothing). One could imagine an AI who refuses to take part in the deception of the test, or does not pass because it understands the overall situation and tells you where to stick it.

Ref: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/