651. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164693 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Actually it was Reason, Truth and History... but that's a minor detail.

652. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164691 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Frankus...


well done! Couldn't have put it more succinctly myself - actually I think I would have written about a page about that. At least I thought I would write that long a comment - which is why I didn't bother.


anyway - well done! Did you remember that right away?

653. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164686 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:07 pm

epeeist,

I think when I came to RD.net, I read some comments by Dianelos... but I have no real recollection.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me what that has to do with "theistic-idealism"? Did Dianelos argue for something like that?

654. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164679 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm

My my, what's with all the smilies in my comments - must be in a particularly good mood today. Ah what the hell - I'll enjoy it while it lasts:

:)

...there.

655. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164677 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:01 pm

As MPhil is saner and a clearer thinker than I am

656. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164675 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm

epeeist,

well, Berkley's idealism was almost "theistic" - he said that matter doesn't exist, only minds and ideas - that "esse est percipere aut percipii" (to be is to perceive or to be perceived)... and that ideas that don't originate in human minds originate from god, who puts them there - such as the ideas of what we perceive to be an "outside world".

:)

657. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164666 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm

No need to apologise, ThoughtsonCommonToad...


And bye Karda.

658. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164660 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad,

a 'God' in the theistic sense.

I'm not talking about a classic God

659. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164657 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Karda,

yes, I knew that already... it is of course idle speculation... but the general principle is that of the philosophical thought-experiment called "brain in a vat".

It's basically the same challenge as those of solipsism and Berkley-idealism. (though there are varying elements depending on whether you're talking about idealism, solipsism, brain in a vat or computer-simulation)

Most think it's just an interesting possibility whose probability can in principle never be calculated because of the inherent problem of skepticism (if we are living in a simulation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that those who run the simulation are going to give us the possibility to work out the probability of that)...


...and furthermore there is an interesting answer to the "brain in a vat" (doesn't matter if its just software btw) challenge from the field of philosophy of language, but I'm not in the mood of laying the argument out right now :)

660. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164651 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Of course science alone can also increase our potential for self-destruction - but reason, rationalism, enlightenment is more than that - and would see to it that this doesn't happen.

661. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164650 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm

stop this now. You are mutating in front of me. You are turning into...

662. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164644 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

but this universe could very plausibly have a 'God' in the theistic sense.

663. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164638 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Science, History, Philosophy - I agree...

Poetry/Literature can teach us something where it either tells us facts in a direct or indirect way (though whether these are facts has to be determined by science, history, philosophy...) - and it can enlighten us about aspects of our own mind didn't know or had repressed. But it can also deceive us about just that.

Experience and emotion can do that as well - no factual statements can be derived from that at all.

As for Meditation and prayer - those can also only tell us something about our own mind - and even then, no statements about facts other than "these are the emotions, experiences I am having" can be justifiably derived from that.

Discussion/Debate has to refer back to the first three if you want to learn something about the universe from that.

664. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164621 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Well of course our intelligence and creativity as the source of our culture has shaped our evolution at least in the way that we (at least we in first-world countries) are able to reduce selection pressure through shelter, through abundance of food and water, through technology, also through our means of travel and individual freedom increasing the set of potential mates (from distant countries for example) etc.

These are huge effects on the selection, but they are not in the same way deliberate shaping of evolution as by employing technology to modify the genome itself.

665. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164583 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Since this is of personal interest to me -

Steve, did I get my facts straight at least in general in post 2845?

666. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164575 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Karda,

the chicken example will not do - artificial selection is only possible through control of breeding - and complete control over evolution only through control of choice of mate and environment.

667. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164571 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Addendum: what I was alluding to by saying "it is enlightenment that will in the end[...]" was that only through science and rationality in general did we and can we find out what really threatens our lives, develop means to avert the disaster and employ them - irrationality will be detrimental to that, even if it only takes up resources of time and energy - but that is by far not the only way in which it impedes the above.

Enlightenment is of tantamount importance.

668. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164564 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

On the topic of evolution and teleology.

We know that the mutations that are "filtered" by natural selection are random. Some may be triggered by deterministic, calculable events - and thus a laplacian demon could know that beforehand and intended it by setting of evolution - but as far as I know, some mutations in the genome are due to radiation produced by the genuinely random radioactive decay - and as such could not even in principle be intended. Seeing as at least some of the mutations caused by this would have to have been beneficial, the effect of this random mutation based on a genuinely random event is cumulative, and as such the product of billions of years of evolution is certainly not even in principle possibly intended - and evolution cannot in principle be completely teleological.

That is - if I got my facts straight.... over to you, Steve...

669. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164534 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 11:42 am

epeeist,
Too much month at the end of the money... tell me about it :)

Indeed I do disagree with moderationsmuse. I agree that even if science had no bearing on anything, and would just be the seeking and providing of knowledge (interestingly, the German word for science is "Wissenschaft", literally the creation/development of knowledge) - it would still be extremely worthwhile.

But it does have a bearing on so many things - myths, everyday beliefs, the quality of life through medicine and technology etc.
For a complete rationalist, I can see science being "cosy" in the sense of not triggering mental discomfort when one holds beliefs that are incompatible with science and also being provided with a corpus of fascinating hypotheses, theories and data. It certainly is not and ought not to be (IMO) an ivory tower discipline... I am a rationalist, and an advocate of enlightenment - and as such think enlightening people is practically a duty of the already enlightened.

Enlightenment, as Kant famously said, is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.

The German word for "disappointment" is "Enttäuschung", literally "dis-deceivement" or "dis-'illusionment'"- and that's what enlightenment is in a positive sense. Taking away elements of self-(illusion) and self-(deception) from people. What could do this better than education in science and philosophy?

When science shatters illusions, some of them held dear that is IMO a good, worthwhile and partially necessary thing in the end.

There might be, as Nietzsche suggested, necessary (self-)deceptions... but I'm not entirely sure, and don't think that this is really a problem. We can go about our lifes with the background knowledge that many of our everyday preconceptions (that the future will resemble the past, that there is a material world around us etc) are not completely beyond any doubt, but still hold these conceptions as pragmatic necessities. That does not mean one should not seek enlightenment.

It is enlightenment that will in the end be the only way to save our lives, our species, other species, maybe the planet...

if it takes "robbing" (by education, not by force and coercion) some people of their comfortable
superstitions and misconceptions - that seems to me to be worth it.

670. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164520 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 11:05 am

epeeist,

ah thank you... I've been meaning to ask what you thought of my list :)

Once you're through with the Knowledge compendium (only took me a year :) there's an interesting new development in epistemology... until now, everyone has always tried to analyze knowledge as "true belief X"... Timothy Williamson has written a book where he lays out a completely new approach... taking knowledge as basic, and analyzing the concepts of belief, evidence and justification through knowledge, not the other way round. Once this semester is over - I'll tell you if it is indeed as revolutionary as the approach suggests.

I do hope you'll find these books as fascinating as I (and thousands of others) did... come to think of it, I'm pretty much positive that you will...

Anyway - if you're interested in discussing any of these once you've read them - I would be happy to.

Best,
-Mike

671. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164504 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 10:45 am

Sorry, had to do some housework...
Just wanted to drop by and say

thank you for the update, Steve!

672. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164412 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 8:22 am

On a side note...

...how's your rebuttal of Bnonn coming along?
And if I may ask - have you formed an opinion yet concerning the matters of my recent PM (the one you said you'd need to think about, - please note that I do not want to press the matter at all... just inquiring.

673. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164407 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 8:13 am

That may be, Steve...

but would apply only to the part involving natural science, i.e. about the "impossibility" of an interactionist deity because of the conservation of energy and momentum. If it should turn out that I'm wrong here so be it - anyway I did qualify that, stating that this is impossible if we take conservation of energy and momentum to be universal.

But if I'm wrong there, not a problem - interventionism would still mean that something non-physical would effect something physical... which reeks of a category mistake.

And of course the conceptual impossibilities and category mistakes would still be there. The concept of a nonphysical personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity cannot have a real referent...

674. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164400 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 7:59 am

And once again I have to point out that on the basis of our knowledge of science and logic - we can prove that certain concepts of deities (such as the Christian god) are logically impossible and therefore cannot have a real referent - and we can prove on the basis of our knowledge of logic and science that no interventionist deity can exist.

We can also prove that the concept of a non-physical, personal god is contradictory, because being a person means being a thinker and potentially an agent, and the concepts necessitate that any potential referent is within time because action and thought is always also a change in state of affairs - which only makes sense in time.

That's philosophy for you - the beginning of philosophy was the beginning of investigation the world, thinking rationally about things and constructing hypotheses rationally - before that, there was only mythology... and, well - some people are so caught up in their mythology that they attempt to justify it retroactively through reason... doesn't work. See above.

Best,
-Mike

675. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164318 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 3:39 am

Lack of excitement? Science...me... lack of excitement? Yea, sure... :)

676. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164313 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 3:32 am

it is a fundamental property of the vacuum in our universe that it generate such particles.

677. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164304 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 3:16 am

But isn't there always and everywhere cosmic background radiation so that there is nowhere ever "absolutely nothing"? In that case I take it it's the math that tells us that in the creation of virtual particles they are not "converted" from the ever present background radiation-energy. (?)

Anyway - fascinating stuff!

678. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164296 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:55 am

Ah, thanks - okay.

But isn't it that the matter is not created out of nothing, but that it's actually energy turning into a pair of virtual particles, matter and antimatter who immediately annihilate each other into energy again (except at the event horizon of black holes - Hawking Radiation and all)...

...not assuming knowledge here, just wanting to learn :)

679. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164289 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 2:31 am

Good morning Steve!


(I think you forgot a "you" in your last sentence)

... but one thing I'm not quite clear about:

And, it does create matter, temporarily.

680. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164087 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Quetz,

I meant the one before that - which looked much cooler in my opinion - with the t-shirt, and the feet, and the stupid grin, that worked by copying-pasting.

681. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164084 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm

phasmagigas,

there are other examples - a favourite example among moral philosophers are head-hunter tribes, or the maja who had a lottery for the honor of being sacrificed, showing that even the "most basic" moral value of life isn't universally shared throughout human cultures.

682. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164082 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Quetz,
the new troll is much better :)

Clicking on the link didn't work for me, but copying and pasting it into the address-bar worked.

683. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164070 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:31 pm

...better :)

684. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164065 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Quetz,

that picture is far too frightening/the creature looks to powerful/impressive to fit any of the trolls on here - while not benign they aren't the least bit impressive, although their IQ, as that of the troll, is probably just below room temperature (in degrees celsius mind you :)

685. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164055 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Moral relativism is a fact - the fact the the values held by people are relative to their culture, their religion, and the age in which they live.

Naturalism means no metaphysical entities and as such no metaphysical moral values - but that this doesn't commit the naturalist to having no moral standard - or indeed to the hypothesis that there is no such thing as moral justification is ludicrous. There can even be universally adhered to moral values, and objective requirements for universally shared goals.

Honestly, I get the creeps when theists who know nothing about ethics and metaethics make bold statements and consider themselves experts in these fields...

I usually do not resort to such language - but this is now beyond doubt:

Remnant, you are an idiot!

686. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164049 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Def.: Supernatural: above and/or beyond the natural.

The "Supernatural" can per definition never have explanatory value, because for explanation, you need a model of the mechanism which leads to the phenomenon you seek to explain.

Read up on "methodological naturalism".

Even if the supernatural exists, there can per definition never be any evidence for it, because all evidence (what you can look at, investigate etc) is in space-time, and as such natural.

So even if the supernatural should exist, that has nothing to do with science - and for examinations of epistemological (look it up if this is too big a word for you) justification for the assumption of anything supernatural - you will want philosophy.

And concerning that - the answer is pretty clear - for the above reasons. There can never be any evidence for it in the natural world. If we cannot explain something, this does not warrant postulating a supernatural cause. Any science fiction pseudoexplanation is more likely than "magic", because all our senses can pick up is within space-time, and as such cannot warrant inference to something of a different category.

Honestly, the impertinence of you.

687. The Child Preachers

Comment #164017 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm

...and PM for both of you in return :)

688. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164012 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 12:31 pm

... I feel ignored... :(


*evilgrin*

689. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #164011 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Well, there is the fact of random mutation of genes and the fact that not all mutations survive... that is the incontrovertible data we have. (the "fact of evolution")


*EDIT* I'm sorry - I forgot something very important: We know that genes have an impact on the ability to produce surviving offspring*EDIT*


The theory of evolution is the best (near perfect) explanation we have for this.

690. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164002 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 12:19 pm

4. a blind faith UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.

691. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163991 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Remnant - are you even reading the posts on here?

Genes mutate randomly, non-teleologically - thus producing the material from which natural selection filters out those genes that make its vessel (organisms) more capable of producing surviving offspring than rival genes.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

"rudimentary and desperate"? - You've got to be kidding!

692. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163990 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 12:06 pm

The mechanism is non-random natural selection over random mutation of genes.

It's the prime example of a creative mechanism. It works - and is proven to work.
Also, there is so much data to show the actuality of this that anyone willing to learn can know this.

693. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163985 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 11:59 am

Concerning "number 10"...

... I really think it is unjustified to claim that everyone who is disagreeing with us (even the total idiots) cannot be sincere in saying that they really have to leave... I'm sure that sometimes they really don't and just want to hit-and-run, but we cannot assume that this is always the case.

Remnant,

1.Natural selection is non-random

2. "Fine-tuning" is something that can be and should be investigated - but lack of knowledge does not warrant postulating a tuner, much less identifying that mechanism (or even entity, if that is at all possible) that is responsible for the value of the fundamental constants with the mythical figure of your choice!

694. The Child Preachers

Comment #163980 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 11:51 am

My goodness,

upon re-reading my paper just now I have come across at least 5 serious orthographical and grammatical errors... I hope you won't think less of me because of them :)

Actually, I did write this paper in two days, and didn't have enough time to proof-read it sufficiently... I am going to correct the errors later.

695. The Child Preachers

Comment #163965 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 11:29 am

All right, Corylus

mind you, mine is not good enough for publication either (not by a long shot)... and it's not so much about Rawls' theory itself than a critique of Rawls not realizing that most religion does not meet the criterion of reasonableness that he imposes in the term "reasonable comprehensive doctrines" - by showing the above stated.


And what's worse, I had to cripple my paper... it used to be 16 pages, but the limit was 10 so I had to cut 6 pages of text... once I clean up the 16 page version, I'll upload that.


Until then - expect a PM in about 2 minutes.

:)

And yes, please do upload yours... :)

696. The Child Preachers

Comment #163960 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 11:16 am

...done

697. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163959 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 11:15 am

Diacanu,

In another era, he would've been frigging executed.

698. The Child Preachers

Comment #163953 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 10:57 am

Gregg,

How about I upload it as a password protected rar-archive somewhere and PM you the link and password?

While the paper assumes familiarity with John Rawls' "Political Liberalism" (great book btw, absolutely worth a read - together with "Justice as Fairness" and his magnum opus "A Theory of Justice"), I think my arguments are pretty intelligible if you haven't read it.

699. The Child Preachers

Comment #163945 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 10:32 am

Gregg,

hmmm.... a German philosopher whose political position does not fit within the two-party schema, who is highly suspicious of the mere concept of patriotism and national pride (as opposed to the absolutely positive feeling of being greatful for having a rich cultural background, knowing that pride in something one did not at least help to bring about oneself is unjustified... , the positive concern for all fellow human beings and the well-being of one's community weighed against the well-being of all others)?

I doubt I would stand a chance :)

...but hey, who knows...

700. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163942 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 10:25 am

Furthermore, religions who posit a personal, interventionist god make classical category mistakes.
We cannot conceive a person that is not in some form an agent - and agency requires being subject to time because acting, or deliberating is a change in state-of-affairs, "change" only makes sense in time - therefore agency only makes sense in time, therefore if god is to be an agent, he cannot be completely metaphysical. This is why some theologians say he "becomes" physical when he brings about something in spacetime. But everything in spacetime is subject to the laws of nature, and therefore this is not a real option (aside from being obviously an attempt at reconciling a concept with known facts that is demonstrably incoherent with known fact ).

Oh, and of course we cannot conceive of personhood without the capability of thought - thought is processing of information, and I forward we cannot conceive of that without a substrate as well - because this needs mechanisms - actual things going through changes.